Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS(No. 2) BILL (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Direct Grant Schools

Mr. Stanley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the grant payable to the direct grant schools will be paid in full in 1976.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Reg Prentice): As I told the House on 27th January, I shall make a statement in due course about phasing out the direct grant system. I have already told the House that the grant will remain payable in respect of upper form pupils already in the schools when the phasing out begins. The exact position in 1976 will be governed by the nature and timing of the phasing-out operation.

Mr. Stanley: Will the Secretary of State reconsider this reactionary policy, which has neither educational nor social justification and which serves to drive many of the finest schools out of the State sector into the independent sector, ensuring that those schools are made available only to those who are most well-off?

Mr. Prentice: I think that many educational and social reasons could be advanced. I suggest that the Opposition should consider whether independent schools should be truly independent, whether they want such schools to receive a State subsidy and what possible justification there is for paying—on behalf of a Government and Parliament which have declared their will to go comprehensive—a State subsidy indefinitely to schools which are by their very nature selective.

Mr. Marks: Where direct grant schools decide to go into the local authority system, will my right hon. Friend advise local authorities to ensure that their staffs receive the same protection as is afforded to local authority teachers in reorganisation schemes?

Mr. Prentice: I shall take account of my hon. Friend's point. Many such matters are now under active consideration.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is there not a further point to be added to the cogent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley): that parents of children at direct grant schools save the taxpayer approximately £18 million a year? In view of the small sum of £4 million for improvements of schools in the building programme announced by the Secretary of State, would it not show a much better sense of educational priorities to leave these schools alone and to devote that money to secondary school improvement in general?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. The implications of this change for public expenditure are difficult to assess exactly. However, from the provisional assessments we are making it is clear that there will be both a saving to public funds and an increase in public expenditure, which I think will very nearly balance out. Certainly it will not make much difference one way or the other to total public expenditure in the next few years.

Teachers

Mr. Jim Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many newly qualified teachers he expects will seek to enter the profession in 1975–76; and if he is satisfied that they will be recruited, in view of the planned reductions in the year 1975–76.

Mr. Prentice: About 36,000 are likely to seek first appointments in maintained primary and secondary schools. Many local education authorities have not yet settled their staffing plans for 1975–76, but preliminary indications are that authorities collectively will take up the teacher quota in full.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of the great public disquiet which has arisen in Leicestershire at the county council's decision or proposal to reduce its 1975–76 education budget by £4 million? This will mean that as a direct consequence the gross intake of teachers into the county schools will be reduced by 350 next year, with a consequential reduction of two teachers per school, together with a reduction in the nutritional content of school meals.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of those actions in Leicester? Is he prepared to introduce emergency legislation to appoint education commissioners to look at local authorities to ensure that their educational standards do not go below the acceptable level?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I have no immediate plans to appoint education commissioners. However, I have made it clear to all local education authorities that we believe that the additional teachers available should be found employment during the coming school year. The quota was designed to achieve that. The replies we have received so far suggest that whereas 11 local education authorities wish to employ fewer teachers than their quota, 28 want to employ more than the suggested quota. The rate support grant figure was arrived at with the education component designed to achieve the full employment of the available teachers.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the method by which the Leicestershire County Council

holds down its rates is a matter for the elected members of the county council?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. It is a matter for me, and indeed for the House, to take a view nationally of the standards of our education system. I have expressed the view very clearly, I thought with the support of both sides of the House, that the community should find employment for the additional teachers available, find the money to employ them and, therefore, achieve an improvement in the staffing ratio.

Mr. Clemitson: How can my right hon. Friend justify the cutting back in teacher training in an area like my own in Bedfordshire when there is every indication that over the next few years the school population will rise, irrespective of what happens in the rest of the country, and where a number of children this term have already suffered from short-time schooling?

Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend will be aware that the teacher training plans in one locality are not designed simply to provide teachers for that locality. Looking at the national situation, it is clear that we shall have a school population falling off in numbers in the years ahead. We are trying to achieve a sufficient supply of teachers to improve staffing ratios, at the same time trying to avoid the risk of teacher unemployment, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) has just referred.

Miss Fookes: Would not it assist the situation if the right hon. Gentleman took up the suggestion made by the Conservative Party that teachers' salaries should be carried by the Exchequer as a short-term measure?

Mr. Prentice: There are strong arguments for and against that proposal. My own view is that I am against it. But these matters, along with other aspects of local government finance, are being studied by the Layfield Committee, and there will be no question of a change in Government policy until its report is received and considered, even if then.

Nursery Education (Avon)

Mr. Terry Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science


how many places in nursery classes are available in the county of Avon in the current year; and how many he expects to be available in 1976.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): In October 1974 there were 1,995 full-time equivalent nursery education places in the county of Avon. The authority has informed my Department that it does not propose to take up any part of its nursery education building allocations for the years 1974–75 and 1975–76.

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will appreciate the very strong feeling that exists among Government supporters about the essential nursery education which is not being provided in the county of Avon, where the job is being left to playgroups, which themselves are feeling the pinch in the present economic situation. Can my hon. Friend say what pressure will be brought to bear on counties like Avon which refuse to provide nursery education with the building programme and the money available?

Mr. Armstrong: I am glad to say that there are only two other authorities alongside Avon which have turned down their allocation. The Government have indicated to authorities that where they are not taking up their allocations we shall reallocate the allocations to other areas, especially those of social need. I am pleased to say that 57 authorities have taken up additional allocations and are now providing places in areas where deprived children are in great need.

Mrs. Renée Short: No doubt my hon. Friend will give an additional windfall to Wolverhampton as a result of some authorities not taking up their allocations for nursery education—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a statement or a question?

Mrs. Short: It is a question, Mr. Speaker. Is my hon. Friend aware that if many authorities refuse to take up their allocations he might consider not allowing those authorities to have their full allocations for other school building, and that the Government ought therefore to make this a condition?

Mr. Armstrong: I take note of what my hon. Friend said about the claims of Wolverhampton. As for the national position, we are determined to proceed with this educational advance and we are using all the options open to us to persuade authorities to go ahead. We are keeping the matter under urgent review.

University Research

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will increase the funds available to the UGC in the light of the effect of inflation on research by the universities.

Mr. Prentice: I announced in the House last December that universities would receive an additional £15 million for recurrent expenditure in the present academic year on account of increasing costs, which include research costs.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not the shortage of funds yet another reason why it would be ludicrous to hive off the Scottish universities and research in Scotland from the UGC at this time—and for no better reason than that it would give the Assembly something to do?

Mr. Prentice: The Government still have to decide what proposals to make to the House about the exact powers of the Scottish Assembly. The views which I have received from the Vice-Chancellors' Committee, from the UGC and from many representatives of university opinion in Scotland support the view strongly that the Scottish universities' link with the UGC should be continued.

Mr. Marten: Would it not be better both for the universities and for parliamentary control of expenditure if the universities were funded on, say, a rolling three-year programme rather than the present quinquennial system?

Mr. Prentice: That alternative has been discussed very often by successive Governments and the UGC. The balance of view has always been that the present system is a better one.

Public Lending Right

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science


whether he can now give a date when he will introduce the promised Bill to create a public lending right for authors.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Hugh Jenkins): A Bill is being prepared with a view to its early introduction.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Although I welcome that rather vague statement from the Under-Secretary, may I ask him to reiterate the pledge which was given in the Queen's Speech and which was made by him that a Bill would be introduced this Session? Will he also say whether he intends to keep his electoral pledge that £5 million would be made available from the Exchequer to right this longstanding injustice to authors?

Mr. Jenkins: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, yes, Sir. As for the second part, there was no electoral pledge and, there fore, I have nothing to reiterate.

Mr. Edelman: My hon. Friend will remember that
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick.
In these circumstances will he speed the elementary act of justice which was not only mentioned in the Queen's Speech but foreshadowed in the Labour Party manifesto?

Mr. Jenkins: I have had several consultations with the authors, their representatives and all the various interested organisations, and I am aware of the views which my hon. Friend mentioned. The proposal which I shall bring forward shortly will take account of all these and various other matters as well.

University Finance

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the financial difficulties now facing universities; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prentice: I have received letters expressing appreciation of the additional grant of £15 million for the current academic year. This should relieve the immediate difficulties of the universities. I hope to announce shortly new levels of grant for the next two academic years which will take into account that the numbers of students in those years will

not increase as rapidly as was expected at the beginning of the quinquennium.

Mr. Lane: In looking at the universities' problems for the remaining two years of the quinquennium, will the Government consider an improvement in the present system under which supplementation for certain of their increased current costs is very much in arrear?

Mr. Prentice: The universities want me as quickly as possible to study the basic levels of grant for these two years. I cannot give any undertaking about what might be done in response to future rates of inflation?

Mr. Ron Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend say to what extent this grant falls short of the increased inflationary costs which the universities are now meeting? I get the impression that at all levels they are having to cut back in their work.

Mr. Prentice: I cannot put a precise figure on this. But the universities are having to face economies as a result of the economic situation. They recognise as we all do that they cannot avoid taking their share of the burdens in the economic situation.

Miss Fookes: Did the right hon. Gentleman receive a letter of appreciation from the Vice-Chancellor of Southampton University, who reckoned that the £15 million was only about half what was required?

Mr. Prentice: Without notice, I am not sure. Certainly I received a letter from the Chairman of the Vice-Chancellors' Committee on behalf of the vice-chancellors expressing their collective view that this was very welcome help in their situation.

Mr. Freud: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the vice-chancellors of the universities accepted the increase in grant with resignation rather than joy? Will he in future try to let inflation run side by side with rather than get so far ahead of the increase in grant?

Mr. Prentice: I agree that the mood expressed fell short of joy, although it was better than resignation. I think that the vice-chancellors were hoping for some help and were glad that it came to as much as £15 million, but that still leaves them with severe difficulties. I think


many of us feel that some universities—I say this with caution—could do more to improve their efficiency. For many years the ratio of lecturers to students in some universities has been and is overgenerous. In deciding priorities within the education system I have had regard to other parts of the system which have been existing more austerely and severely than universities. Nevertheless, the universities have problems and we have done something to try to alleviate the immediate critical situation.

Pupils (Maintenance)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he plans to introduce legislation requiring parents to maintain their children while undergoing full-time education.

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir.

Mr. McCrindle: Is the Secretary of State aware that student poverty can often result from parents refraining from assisting their children in full-time education in the way that the State assumes them to do in assessing grants under the means-test system? Is he also aware that in West Germany, for example, there is a requirement that parents accept responsibility for children in full-time education? Has he any thoughts about introducing similar legislation here?

Mr. Prentice: This is a real problem. It would be difficult in practice to legislate on the financial arrangements between individual members of a family. I have recently asked local education authorities to notify parents directly of the amount they should contribute to make up the difference between the grant from public funds and the grant to which the student is entitled.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would it be possible to arrange for parents who do not make up the grant in the proper way not to get their tax allowances?

Mr. Prentice: I will consider any suggestions that may be put forward, but it is difficult to assess, measure and monitor the precise financial arrangements between members of a family unit to arrive at a decision on my hon. Friend's or any other suggestion in this respect.

Exhall Primary School

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement about his refusal to see a deputation led by the hon. Member for Nuneaton about the replacement of Exhall Primary School.

Mr. Armstrong: My right hon. Friend received a deputation last July led by the hon. Members for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) and Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) at which the need to replace this and other primary schools was discussed. Correspondence since then has explained why the school has not yet been programmed for replacement. It is simply not possible for my right hon. Friend to find time to meet all the people who wish to talk to him about the needs of two particular schools.

Mr. Huckfield: Does my hon. Friend accept that this school has far more than its fair share of temporary buildings which have been standing since the last war? Does he also accept that this is probably the fastest growing part of my constituency? While appreciating that his right hon. Friend courteously received a deputation that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) brought from the National Union of Teachers, that his right hon. Friend has a very crowded diary and that the Warwickshire County Council has a rôle to play in this matter in the priorities that it allocates to school building, may I ask my hon. Friend to press his right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision? If my right hon. Friend cannot receive a deputation, will my hon. Friend receive one?

Mr. Armstrong: We are well aware that a great number of primary schools need urgent replacement. Therefore, we allocated £20 million in last year's school building programme for the replacement of primary schools. Within the last fortnight we have indicated to my hon. Friend's local authority that £1,787,000 has been allocated for next year's building programme. Of course, priorities will be decided by the local authority concerned. However, if my hon. Friend wants to make special representations I shall give them careful consideration.

Secondary Education (Kingston-upon-Thames)

Sir Nigel Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what, if any, changes he wishes to be introduced in the secondary educational system of the Royal borough of Kingston-upon-Thames and why; and by what methods he intends that they should be introduced.

Mr. Armstrong: My right hon. Friend wishes to see, in Kingston-upon-Thames as elsewhere, the abolition of selection and the development of a fully comprehensive system. This is because the Government believe that selection is unfair and deprives children of the wide-ranging opportunities that comprehensive secondary education can provide. It is for the local education authority, in response to Circular 4/74, to inform him of the successive measures to be taken to that end.

Sir Nigel Fisher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the council and people of Kingston and Surbiton are more concerned with the quality of education in their borough than with its organisational form? On that criterion, we have one of the 10 best records of any education authority in the country with almost double the average number of university places. Should not that be the real test of a secondary education system? If so, why seek to change it? If the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt, will he receive a local deputation to discuss this whole matter?

Mr. Armstrong: I shall be glad to receive a local deputation. It is precisely because we are concerned with the quality of education that we want to get rid of the selective system. [Interruption.] I do not think that shouting furthers the argument. Any system of secondary education which allocates without choice 80 per cent. of the children of a borough to schools which are not considered suitable for children who are academically able is denying the quality of education to the vast majority of children. We want to get rid of that system and give real equality of opportunity. That is why we are determined to get an early response from Kingston.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative Party is, as usual, demanding special favours for itself, not only in education but in hospital beds and so on? Does he further agree that nothing better could happen to the education system, not only in Kingston-upon-Thames but throughout the whole country, than complete comprehensivisation?

Mr. Armstrong: Yes. We have expressed that view to the Kingston authority. We want to abolish selection because it is educationally unsound and unfair. We are not prepared to tolerate indefinite delay by any authority.

Mr. Carlisle: On what does the hon. Gentleman base his statement that the quality of education in comprehensive schools is better than in existing schools?

Mr. Armstrong: There are various yardsticks. I believe that every judgment about education is a value judgment. We cannot measure education and its success merely by examination results. The evidence is there for all to see. Since we started the move towards a comprehensive system, examination results have been better and better as the years have gone by.

Stress Area Schools

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will review the arrangements for listing schools eligible for stress grants.

Mr. Prentice: The Burnham Committee has only just concluded an agreement on the payments to teachers in social priority schools. It intends to review the arrangements at a later date in the light of experience.

Mr. Spearing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the experience of some teachers in the London borough of Newham is bitter? Over half the teaching force is eligible for an additional grant of over £200, but in some schools with equivalent catchment areas there are no such plans. Therefore, the system is being worked in an arbitrary fashion and the reaction of teachers in those areas is notably bitter. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that within a year there is a review and that, if necessary, the Newham Borough Council will be allowed to have an equivalent


amount of money to share between all the teachers in the borough to avoid the bitterness that has been created?

Mr. Prentice: The designation of the schools to benefit from this allowance was decided by the Burnham Committee. It is not a matter in which I have power to intervene, nor should I wish to do so.
The very fact that about 57 per cent. of teachers in Newham are in schools that will receive the allowance means that the problems of the borough—which my hon. Friend and myself, as Members for the borough, know are severe—will be alleviated to some extent. Considerable help will be provided to retain experienced teachers who are urgently needed because there will be a financial incentive for them to stay. At the margins of a scheme such as this there is bound to be resentment by those who do not come within its provisions, but I still think that the scheme will help Newham and many other parts of the country.

Mr. Wigley: In some rural areas there are severe problems of social deprivation which do not fit into the categories outlined by the Burnham Committee. Will the right hon. Gentleman take all these criteria into consideration, particularly in my area where the local education authority believes that the bilingual requirement of teachers ought to be considered?

Mr. Prentice: What the hon. Gentleman has said does not detract from the general benefits which the scheme will provide in both rural and urban areas, but it illustrates that the Burnham Committee had a difficult job in drawing up the criteria. When the committee reviews the matter in a year's time it will want to consider the practical experience of local education authorities throughout the country and all the various criticisms and the suggestions that are made.

Adult Education

Mr. Bryan Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the anticipated rise in the rate of educational expenditure on adult education in the next financial year.

Mr. Prentice: I have no means of knowing how much local education authorities will decide to spend on adult education in 1975–76. Subject to approval

by Parliament, I hope to be able to afford a modest increase for the direct grant sector.

Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are disturbing signs that adult education is facing its greatest crisis for many years and that unless something is done the situation will get worse, many classes will be cut and many part-time teachers will be sacked? Cannot something be done by the Department to ensure that at least a modicum of standards is maintained in the adult education sector?

Mr. Prentice: As I said, we are going to propose extra help to bodies which get their financial help direct from my Department. As regards local education authorities, the component in the rate support grant on this matter provides for some increase in student numbers and for rises in teachers' pay, which are relevant, and it also makes for some modest improvement or allows for it in non-teaching costs.

Dr. Hampson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Workers' Educational Association faces ruin from inflation because the grant it receives covers only teaching and not the organisation and administrative side? Will he look at that and try to improve the situation?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the Public Expenditure White Paper he has changed the definition of higher education, including further and adult education, because it is difficult to discover whether there is a shortfall on his estimates compared with those of the previous Government?

Mr. Prentice: I should like to consider the latter point, and if there are ways in which the matter can be clarified to the House no doubt we can do that, perhaps through question and answer or in some other way. My officers have been in touch with the WEA in recent months, and we have agreed some additional grant to several districts which were facing particularly severe financial problems.

Chester (Direct Grant Schools)

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will pay an official visit to the direct grant schools in the city of Chester.

Mr. Prentice: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents will be disappointed that he has no such plans, because they are proud of their direct grant schools in Chester, not least because they afford the opportunity to children of every background to have extra education? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that any decision he takes to abolish these schools will be contrary to the majority decision of my constituents?

Mr. Prentice: My proposals are not to abolish schools. I hope that many direct grant schools will have a constructive future to play in local comprehensive secondary arrangements. If others opt to go independent, they must be truly independent and not expect to be subsidised from public funds.

Mr. Marks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the education debate last week the former Conservative spokesman on education said there was a danger that the Conservative Party would appear to be interested only in direct grant and independent schools? Do not this Question and a host of others on the Order Paper today show that not only does the Conservative Party appear to be interested only in such schools but it is interested only in them and cannot care less about the others?

Mr. Prentice: I agree with my hon. Friend. I should like sometimes to hear Conservative Members address themselves to the point that under the selective system about three-quarters of all children find their way to secondary modern schools. They should also address themselves to the question of what improved opportunities are due to the majority of children, and they should judge our comprehensive plans against that criterion.

Sir G. Sinclair: In view of the sharply rising running costs of all schools, in whatever sector, may I ask what steps the Secretary of State is taking to enable direct grant schools to meet these rising costs either by raising the direct grant or by allowing fees to be raised at the right pace?

Mr. Prentice: I have no proposals to raise the level of grant. I am prepared to approve increases in fees provided I am satisfied that the schools concerned are being as austere in their standards as maintained schools are having to be in the present economic climate.

Bolton (Comprehensive Education)

Mrs. Ann Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now expects a system of comprehensive education to be introduced in Bolton.

Mr. Armstrong: The Bolton local education authority has informed my right hon. Friend, in response to Circular 4/74, that a working party which is now considering the position in those areas of the authority in which schools are not yet reorganised on comprehensive lines expects to finish its work by 30th June 1975. The authority has been told of the importance we attach to an early and substantive response to the circular with a view to the development of a fully comprehensive system as speedily as possible.

Mrs. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable feeling in Bolton that this extra working party is merely a delaying tactic on the part of members of the local authority who do not wish to see a comprehensive system introduced in Bolton? Will my hon. Friend assure us that his Department will put sufficient pressure on the local authority to ensure that Bolton goes comprehensive not later than September 1976?

Mr. Armstrong: We are in constant touch with Bolton, and we are determined to press ahead. The difficulty in Bolton, I am sorry to say, is that the Opposition spokesman on education rather misled the Bolton authority. Last July, in the midst of much election talk, he wrote to the chairman of the authority telling him not to worry because when a Tory Government got back to office they would rescind Labour's Circular 4/74. The working party, which is representative of elected members and teachers, did not get down to work until after the October election, and we are now looking to it for an urgent response.

Mr. Evelyn King: Did not the hon. Gentleman wisely say a few moments


ago that these judgments as between direct grant schools, comprehensive schools and so on are value judgments which cannot be proved one way or the other? We accept that. Is it not logical in a free society that the choice should be left to parents and that they should express their views through their elected representatives?

Mr. Armstrong: Our experience is that parental judgment throughout the country is in favour of abolishing selection. I do not go back on my comment about value judgments. How we organise education and the kind of school that we want to see abolished is an indication of what we believe about children and the society in which they live. I want to see a society in which every child has equality of opportunity.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, far from misleading the Bolton Council, I gave it a clear pledge that if a Conservative Government were returned we should make good any losses in the building programme which it might have suffered for standing up for its own independence? I repeat that pledge today.

Mr. Armstrong: By his intervention the hon. Gentleman postponed the decision of the Bolton authority to get on with the job of giving equality of opportunity to all its children.

Foetus Experiments

Dr. Bray: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what experiments are taking, or have taken, place using a live human foetus in university or research council laboratories.

Mr. Prentice: The Medical Research Council assures me that no such experiments would be conducted in its laboratories or supported by its grants. I do not control university research but I am advised that it is both unethical and illegal to carry out experiments on a viable foetus which are inconsistent with treatment necessary to promote life.

Dr. Bray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that such experiments are deeply repugnant to many people? Can he say whether experiments on live but not viable foetuses are legal?

Mr. Prentice: My advice is that a foetus which is live and viable in legal terms is a baby and is fully protected by the law. On the question of a foetus which is not viable, I understand that the question is at present one of medical ethics for the doctor or surgeon in charge of the abortion or whatever operation has preceded these events. These are matters which are departmentally the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and can be debated on Friday when the Bill before the House will seek to secure the statutory implementation of parts of the Peel Report, which dealt with this very difficult question.

Secondary Reorganisation

Mr. Brittan: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he now proposes to introduce legislation to compel local education authorities which have not already done so, to reorganise secondary education on comprehensive lines.

Mr. Prentice: I am at present studying the responses of local education authorities to Circular 4/74. As I told the House on 27th January—[Vol. 885, c. 55–6]—I would prefer not to have to introduce legislation, but if satisfactory progress cannot be made without it the Government will not hesitate to do so.

Mr. Brittan: While one welcomes the fact that there is at least a momentary respite from the threat of legislation, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman meanwhile to stop seeking to impose his policy by means of a bullying circular, which does not have the force of law and which can be resisted with absolute impunity by councils which have the courage to stand up to him?

Mr. Prentice: The circular does not have the force of law. Therefore, if there are local education authorities—I think there will be very few, but there are a few—which stand out against all the experience of recent years and all informed opinion in these matters, and against a policy which was approved by Parliament 10 years ago and has been approved several times since, including last week, by implication, in the vote taken last Monday, Parliament will clearly want to legislate. In that event


I would look to hon. Members of good will on both sides of the House to support the view that Parliament should legislate in order to secure for thousands of children who are still denied them the opportunities of comprehensive secondary education at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Will my right hon. Friend take on board the message that his major task in education is to educate the Conservative Party that selection and comprehensive education are mutually exclusive concepts?

Mr. Prentice: I am afraid that I do have to spend more time on that than I would wish, but I am glad to have noted reports that there are many in the country active in the Conservative Party—leading members of education committees—who have been engaged recently in trying to educate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in these matters and to remind him that it has been part of the policy of many Conservative authorities for many years to reorganise their areas on comprehensive lines.

Mr. Cormack: As the right hon. Gentleman has an enviable reputation for intellectual courage and openness of mind, why is he not prepared to have an inquiry into the relative values of the various forms of secondary education as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)?

Mr. Prentice: There does not seem to be any need to spend time and energy on an inquiry on a subject on which we have practical experience all the time and on which the growing evidence from all parts of the country and other parts of the world over many years has been that boys and girls develop their talents better within a comprehensive system and without being divided artificially into two groups at the age of 10½.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this should no longer be a party matter, since the absurdity of the selective system was described in a White Paper issued by the wartime Coalition Government in 1943?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, but since then there has been a division within the Conserva-

tive Party between the minority who understand educational issues and the majority who do not and who do not want to understand them.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the last time his party introduced a Bill along these lines, it was lost owing to the defection of Labour supporters, including the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price)? Secondly, will he reflect that if he introduces a Bill of this character he will destroy the balance of duties, responsibilities and rights between local education authorities and the Department of Education and Science and will be taking a major step towards a State-centred and State-controlled system of education?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. Education in this country has traditionally and rightly been a partnership between national and local government. It is a proper rôle for the national Government and for Parliament to define a policy in terms of saying that we should move away from selection and towards a comprehensive system. The method of doing it and, within reasonable limits, the timing of doing it are appropriate, I believe, for local decision. I believe, therefore, that what I am suggesting follows the traditional relationship between national and local government in these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — EEC (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Stanley: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Trade about the EEC to the southern regional council of the Labour Party on 19th January represented the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Trade on the EEC at Brighton on 19th January represents Government policy.

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Trade at Brighton on 19th January on British membership of the EEC represents Government policy.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if the speech made by


the Secretary of State for Trade in Brighton on 19th January represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson: I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Members to the replies I gave him and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) in answer to supplementary questions on 21st January.

Mr. Stanley: Is it not crystal clear from that speech that the Secretary of State for Trade believes that Britain should be renegotiating its terms of entry into the EEC with a view to coming out, while it is the collective position of the Government that we are renegotiating with a view to staying in? Is it not therefore incumbent upon the Secretary of State to continue his campaign for getting Britain out of the Common Market from the back benches?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has got this wrong. My right hon. Friend and all of us on this side fought two elections on the manifesto, which says that we shall negotiate on these terms. When we have seen what the terms are, it will be decided by the country through the ballot box, which, of course, is now to be through the referendum.

Mr. Hamilton: What interpretation does my right hon. Friend put on the balance of trade figures? Does he agree with the interpretation put on them by the Secretary of State or with that of the Foreign Secretary? Since my right hon. Friend and others have made it clear that they are about to make a recommendation to the people before they take part in the referendum that we should like to stay in, can my right hon. Friend tell us when that statement will be made?

The Prime Minister: With such limited statistical qualification as I am capable of, I have been through the figures quoted on this occasion and all the other relevant figures. While, of course, one can have different base dates for figures, any reading of the figures confirms what are the facts—namely, that the expectations put forward in 1971 about the balance of trade between this country and the Common Market have been utterly falsified by the events, and that they are in fact much worse.
Of course this is partly due to high world food prices and the fact that we have been able to get food from the Common Market at high but not comparably higher prices. But if one takes the whole range of trade, the figures are far worse than those suggested by the Leader of the Opposition in those earlier debates.

Mr. Gardiner: Even accepting that collective Cabinet responsibility seems to have gone out of the window on this issue, may I ask the Prime Minister to confirm that the question of sovereignty, of which the Secretary of State makes so much, forms no part of the matters which are being negotiated between the Government and fellow members of the EEC? Will the Prime Minister clearly state his own view that if he is successful in obtaining the terms which he seeks this will involve no damaging erosion of our national sovereignty?

The Prime Minister: With regard to collective responsibility, there is on the part of the Government, and in all the foreseeable future, far greater collective responsibility than I can see now or foresee for three years ahead in the Shadow Cabinet. Parliamentary sovereignty is a very important issue in the negotiations. Perhaps, having a safe seat, the hon. Gentleman felt that he did not have to read our manifesto. If he will read it, he will see clearly stated that parliamentary sovereignty is one of the vital issues in the renegotiations. If, on questions of parliamentary sovereignty, which we insist is a very important matter, I and my colleagues are satisfied, I shall certainly be prepared to accept that the manifesto has been fulfilled. If not, not.

Oral Answers to Questions — LABOUR PARTY—TUC LIAISON COMMITTEE

Mr. Daffy: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with the TUC Liaison Committee on 20th January 1975.

The Prime Minister: The Labour Party-TUC Liaison Committee meets at regular intervals to discuss matters of common concern. At the meeting on 20th January the Government representatives reaffirmed the central importance of the social contract in present circumstances. For its part the TUC underlined the need for firm adherence to the TUC guidelines.

Mr. Duffy: Did the TUC also fully appreciate my right hon. Friend's anxiety about the dangers of the economic outlook and acknowledge that anything less than the strictest observance of the social contract guidelines would aggravate inflation, thus undermining the living standards of pensioners and those who cannot negotiate, and, inevitably make for other Government measures?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. At no other such meeting have I been clearer. The TUC understands and very much agrees with my hon. Friend's analysis. It is very concerned, as we are in all parts of the House, about the dangers in this country and abroad of the spread of depression and unemployment. This was very much part of our discussions. I found the same awareness of—indeed, even great anxiety about—the problem of unemployment at a time of world inflation when my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I met the leaders of the American Government last week. It is a world problem which must be tackled by world action and by the utmost domestic action within our several countries.

Mr. Pardoe: Was it a matter of general agreement at the meeting that the social contract still meant that the Government would maintain living standards? Was that agreed by both the TUC and the Prime Minister? Now that the White Paper on Public Expenditure has shown that the Government no longer believe that that is possible, when will the right hon. Gentleman be meeting the TUC leaders to tell them?

The Prime Minister: I answered the first part of that question, in relation to living standards, the week before last. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in planning the Public Expenditure White Paper we began from the expected increase in production in this country, but because of the need to deploy more resources to the foreign trade balance and to increasing investment we said that national expenditure must rise less than the expected increase in gross national production, and also that there would not be as much available for increased wage payments.

Mr. Heath: Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity since he returned from

Washington to look at the latest CBI trends survey, which is obviously of great concern to the TUC as well as the CBI? What the trends now show is that the number of firms expecting to invest less in plant and machinery in the coming year has increased twelvefold since the present Government came to power almost a year ago and that the number expecting to shed labour during the coming year is the greatest since the survey was started in 1958, in the same way as the plant and machinery outlook is the worst since 1958. Is not the right hon. Gentleman appalled at this? Does it not show that in the past year the expectations for the future in investment and employment have become the worst ever?

The Prime Minister: I have studied these figures, which the whole House will agree are extremely serious. Investment has never got back to the now halcyon figures of 1970. They never did under the right hon. Gentleman's Government, despite his hubris at the Guildhall, where he said that our entry into Europe would lead to a great increase in investment. Investment fell after that speech. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that these are matters for great concern.
As for unemployment, we warned a year ago—we did it in the election—what the prognosis was. All of this Government's policies are designed to restrain the then inevitable increase in unemployment and to get investment up.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on the current economic situation on Monday 20th January in London at the meeting of the TUC—Labour Party Liaison Committee.

The Prime Minister: I made no such speech, Sir.

Mr. Adley: That accounts for the fact that it is not in the Library. Is the Prime Minister aware that he has deprived me of a marvellous opportunity of hoping that he would answer "Yes" to the Question? He did, however, make a speech on that date, reported in the national Press, in which he discussed at length the social contract. Is he aware that a former adviser to his Government, Mr. Wilfred Beckerman, has said that the social contract is now about as effective


in combating inflation as appeasement is in containing dictators? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that we should all like to see the social contract work—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had two supplementary questions from the hon. Gentleman already.

The Prime Minister: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his marvellous recovery, with that supplementary question on the speech which was not made and which, as he has now discovered, is not in the Library. I made a speech on that day. It is possible to go from one engagement to another, and at lunchtime I made a speech to the provincial Press, a copy of which I think is in the Library. But that did not refer to the questions the hon. Gentleman is now trying to raise. If he had been to the right library and had got the right speech, he would have seen that it referred to certain aspects of the test of public opinion in relation to the Common Market. It was in fact a trailer for the statement I made in the House three days later. That statement is on the record not only in the Library but in Hansard.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT FORD (TALKS)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if, when he visited the United States of America he discussed with the President the question of military action being taken in connection with oil supplies from the Arab States.

The Prime Minister: My talks were confidential. I have nothing to add to the recent public statements by President Ford and Dr. Kissinger but it is clear that they were answering questions about hypothetical circumstances.

Mr. Allaun: Whatever was said in those confidential discussions, will my right hon. Friend assure the country and Parliament that he is opposed to the use of military force against any nation because it refuses to sell its products, particularly as that could easily escalate into a third world war?

The Prime Minister: I take what my hon. Friend says very seriously. Although the discussions were confidential I can tell him what I said on the record in

Canada before I went to the United States, and I will make it available if that is desired. [Interruption.] I must point out to the Leader of the Liberal Party that this is a serious matter which concerns peace and war. What I said on the record was that I had not discussed it with the President. I did not see any need to do so. I think Dr. Kissinger was perhaps making a warning to some wilder elements, and not the more responsible countries, that if they felt that they could use the oil weapon as itself a weapon of war, some kind of response would have to be shown. Dr. Kissinger has made it clear that he thinks it a distant and remote hypothetical contingency, and I agree with him.

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his visit to the United States of America.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I welcome this opportunity to give the House an account of the visits which the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I made to Canada and the United States last week. In Ottawa we had useful discussions with the Canadian Prime Minister and his colleagues, mainly on economic questions, and I look forward to welcoming Mr. Trudeau to this country in March.
In Washington our talks with President Ford and Dr. Kissinger also centred mainly on world economic problems and on the Middle East, although a wide range of other international issues was covered. I particularly welcomed the American recognition of the growing economic interdependence of the world, and the lead which the Americans have given in efforts to promote solutions to world energy problems. I also confirmed British support for American efforts to bring about a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East. Relations between the United States and the United Kingdom are extremely close and the meeting was an opportunity to develop even closer agreement about our main objectives and the means of attaining them.
My right hon. Friend and I also welcomed the opportunity to call on the Secretary-General of the United Nations in New York.
The House will, of course, understand that apart from the information given


publicly about the subjects covered, the details of all these discussions must remain confidential.

Mr. Marten: I thank the Prime Minister for making that statement. Was he able to reassure the Americans about the Government's taxation policy towards American companies operating in the North Sea on oil drilling? If so, how did he do it?

The Prime Minister: That matter did not come up between the President and myself although, as the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accompanied me on the visit. On this matter he had a brief discussion of half an hour with the State Department experts. No anxiety on this subject was expressed to us during the visit but my right hon. Friend is having discussions with the interests concerned. He stayed on after I left.

Mr. George Rodgers: Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity of discussing with the President of the United States the continued presence of 25,000 American advisers in South Vietnam? Does he think that that enhances the prospect of peace in that area?

The Prime Minister: We had no discussion whatsoever on Vietnam. I was asked a question publicly on this subject on American television in the recorded interview which was published on Sunday. No doubt my hon. Friend will have seen in Press reports yesterday the answer I gave in that interview. Should he not have seen it, I shall be glad to let him have a copy of what I said.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of widespread concern in Scotland about the report which appeared in the Financial Times on 30th this matter and what pledges or assur-January suggesting that the American President was advising the Prime Minister against any control of our Scottish oil resources going to the Scottish Assembly? Will he advise the House on what repredent or by his advisers in connection with sentations were made to him by the Presiances were given about control?

The Prime Minister: No such discussion took place. I think that the hon.

Gentleman is confusing the President of the United States with the President of Uganda.

Mr. Luard: Is there not one question on which there is a clear division of interest between this country and the United States—namely, the price of oil not over the next two or three years but over the long term? Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether he discussed that matter with the President of the United States? Has he noticed recent proposals by Dr. Kissinger which have the object of keeping down the rise in the price of oil over the long term? Will he tell us what consideration the Government have given to discussing these matters with our allies over the coming years?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend referred to a division. I should inform him that the President did not ask where he was when the Division took place last Wednesday night. On the long-term price of oil, we had full discussions with the President and the Secretary of State about arrangements for meeting all oil consumers and then all oil-consuming and oil-producing countries. One of the matters that we very much stressed was the importance of ensuring for the oil-supplying countries, despite our anxieties about present prices, some security for them in future as regards both their investments and their continuing market. In that context we suggested strongly—there was no disagreement—that we would like to see the oil-supplying countries investing much more of their money in technology both for their own countries and possibly in other forms of energy for those who fear the drying up of oil supplies. We had considerable discussions on how this long-term security could be achieved. With regard to the statement made yesterday by Dr. Kissinger which has been reported in our Press today, we did not discuss the text or the terms of that statement.

Mr. Blaker: Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the President of the United States the fact that our trade deficit with the United States has increased many times faster than our trade deficit with the EEC? Will he explain how it is that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is apparently opposed to cutting tariffs with the EEC, presumably on the ground that to do so might


increase our trade deficit, whereas he is in favour of cutting tariffs with the United States?

The Prime Minister: This convoluted argument did not form any part of my discussions with the President of the United States.

Mr. Hooley: Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to impress upon the President of the United States the urgency of convening the Geneva Conference if a new war is to be avoided in the Middle East?

The Prime Minister: We had a full discussion on the Middle East. In fact, it took pretty well the whole of our Friday morning session. I was asked about the matter afterwards and we publicly supported in the United States the step-by-step approach of the American Secretary of State. I believe that that is the right approach. We shall give it our full backing. We believe that it will need a great deal of understanding and give and take by the Middle East countries concerned.
If my hon. Friend is suggesting—I do not think he is—that the right thing now would be a return to the Geneva Conference, I think I would disagree with him. Indeed, I said so publicly in the United States. All that is going on is under the ambit or the umbrella of the Geneva Conference. At the right moment anything that is settled will have to go back there for agreement and ratification. But to say that because disappointing progress has been made so far we should now go back to Geneva would be a counsel of despair. It would be to suggest that no progress has been made. I do not think we should recommend a return to Geneva at this stage. We should try to make some progress and then take something back to Geneva to ratify.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I revert to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). Is it the case that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is now assuring the Americans that the Government do not intend to take any additional revenue from North Sea oil from participation but will rely entirely on corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax? If that is the case, will the Prime

Minister arrange for his right hon. Friend to come to the House to explain how we will achieve this miracle?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should not assume too much about these matters. He has been wrong so often in the past. My right hon. Friend has spoken in America exactly as the Government have spoken in this House—indeed, in the way my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy spoke when these matters were the subject of Questions on, I think, 23rd January. The right hon. Gentleman was present and he will know the date. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy returns, if he has any statement to make about his talks in the United States I am sure he will be willing to consider making it.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: On the Middle East, did my right hon. Friend stress to the President that Britain believes in the right of the State of Israel to exist within secure boundaries? Did he deplore the recent ostracising of Israel in UNESCO? What did he say about the rôle of this country in achieving a lasting peace in the Middle East?

The Prime Minister: On my hon. Friend's first point, he is stating the position, which, as is well known, I have always taken and which is the position of the British Government, about the right of Israel to exist within secure frontiers. We did not discuss UNESCO, but our position was made absolutely clear in our vote at UNESCO. As for the part that Britain should play in achieving a lasting peace, our rôle is to co-operate in the step-by-step approach. My right hon. Friend and I will be visiting Moscow next week and we naturally anticipate that this matter will come up. We shall express there the same view as the Government have expressed in Washington and as my right hon. Friend and I expressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. We shall pursue the matter further with the Soviet Government in any such discussions.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did the Prime Minister receive any assurances or information from the President concerning the admittedly very difficult problem of stopping money going from sources in the United States to the IRA?

The Prime Minister: No, that matter was not discussed with him. The House will have seen the report, which is accurate, that my right hon. Friend and I met a very weighty and representative group of senators and congressmen and I was asked about the Irish situation. I described it to them in terms which I think will have the general support of the House, and I referred to my right hon. Friend's part in all these matters. My right hon. Friend made a very strong appeal to the senators and congressmen to use their influence in their constituencies to stop the flow of funds and arms to the IRA. While I did not discuss this matter with President Ford, I did have discussions with senior members of the administration subsequently.

Mr. Dalyell: President Amin apart, will my right hon. Friend satisfy our curiosity about what on earth President Ford said about the Scottish nationalists? Is it repeatable?

The Prime Minister: Although we discussed most other aspects of world import, the President of the United States did not at any point refer to the Scottish nationalists.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister is obviously aware of the deep anxieties both within and outside the House about the possibility of future conflict in the Middle East, particularly as spring approaches. Many of us will agree that the time has not come to reconvene the Geneva Conference, and we would not believe that there was any future in trying to take military action over oil supplies. However, as a result of the talks can the Prime Minister give any more of an indication as to how he thinks further progress can be made in the next two or three months in order to prevent an outbreak of strife in the Middle East?

The Prime Minister: From what the right hon. Gentleman said, and from what I know to be his position, I know that there is no difference between the two Front Benches on this matter about war, oil or the use of force to settle the Middle East question, whether there or from outside. We must look to the forthcoming visit of the Secretary of State, Dr. Kissinger, to the Middle East. He is going to try to advance the step-by-step position there, and we will naturally give

him our full backing, as I know the Leader of the Opposition will. In our discussions with the Secretary-General of the United Nations we made it clear that this would be our position. I do not think that there is any alternative proposal at the moment, certainly no cataclysmic solution that anyone can propose.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman expressed the view on Geneva exactly as I would: that while the parties operate under the general ambit of Geneva, simply to go back to Geneva would be meaningless unless there was a policy to put forward there. We believe that the most promising prospect for agreement lies in patient negotiation.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in what he was implying, if not exactly saying, that time is on no one's side here. This cannot be left as a stalemate for a long period. There are problems of the extension of the United Nations troop mandates in different parts of the Middle East, and therefore we want to see progress made, but it would be wrong to try to force it by any contrived solution.

STEEL INDUSTRY (CLOSURE REVIEW)

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about the steel review.
On 23rd May I reported to the House the procedures we had agreed, with those concerned, for conducting the review of the proposed closures of steelworks, which we had promised in the Labour Party's "Programme for Britain: 1973". My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Beswick, undertook that review, and has now made an interim report, copies of which were made available to hon. and right hon. Members this morning, and I am circulating it in the Official Report. This report represents the first results of the most extensive and open examination of the plans of a public corporation that has taken place, requiring it to justify its proposals in detail in the light of its social responsibilities. The Government have accepted the conclusions in Lord Beswick's report, and hope they will also be acceptable to those who work in the steel industry and to the House.
We have carefully re-examined the capacity target of the corporation, set out in the previous Government's paper on BSC development strategy, about which many of my hon. Friends have been concerned. In the light of the review, the corporation proposes to accelerate its development strategy so as to achieve a capacity of 37 million tonnes a year in the early 1980s. This is as rapid an expansion as can be realistically expected in current conditions.
The plants covered by the interim report are East Moors, Hartlepool iron and steelmaking, Cleveland ironmaking, Shelton, Shotton and Ebbw Vale. Nothing announced today will pre-empt the decisions still to be taken on the BSC's proposals for Scotland or other cases still under review. For East Moors, we have secured the deferment of the closure by four years to not earlier than January 1980. At Hartlepool, the closure of iron and steelmaking will be deferred by at least two years until 1978. At Cleveland, the closure dates proposed by the BSC will be adhered to because the alternative employment is readily available at the BSC plants close by. As to Shelton, a new steel plant will be erected which will save about 800 jobs. The proposed closure at Shotton will be deferred at least until 1980–81, while further study is undertaken of the economics of modernised steelmaking there. At Ebbw Vale, we have accepted the BSC proposals for the closure of iron and steelmaking and, ultimately, of the hot mill. Production at the hot mill, as elsewhere, will be maintained until adequate supplies of replacement steel become available from other plants.
This review has therefore saved some 13,500 jobs for from two to four years or more at East Moors, Hartlepool and Shotton and has permanently saved the jobs of about 800 men at Shelton. Of the plants reviewed, the only closure now imminent is ironmaking and some of the steelmaking at Ebbw Vale. Discussions with the chairman of the corporation about the detailed phasing of redundancies and the provision of new jobs have already begun.
It is the Government's policy to ensure that resources are available to assist the provision of new employment and to improve infrastructure in the areas

affected. We have also decided to ask the corporation to accept a special responsibility both in the phasing of redundancies and, to as great an extent as possible, for the provision of new job opportunities in steel-related and other projects. This latter concept, which I hope the House will welcome, needs to be examined and discussed more fully, but it could introduce a new dimension into redundancy problems in the public sector.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure the House will welcome the announcement of the new developments at Shelton and Shotton. The House will remember that these were foreshadowed in paragraphs 57 and 49 of the Conservative White Paper "British Steel Corporation: Ten Year Development Strategy".
Will the Secretary of State confirm that full development at Port Talbot will not be delayed until the final decision about Shotton is taken, and will he say how many jobs will become redundant within the British Steel Corporation over the next five years?
The Secretary of State claims that the review has saved 13,500 jobs for between two and four years. That will cost the BSC at least £120 million. How will that be reflected in the accounts of the corporation, or does the right hon. Gentleman intend to give the BSC specific compensation for it?
The right hon. Gentleman claims that the corporation proposes to accelerate its programme to 37 million tonnes by the early 1980s. How can he claim that that is an acceleration when in paragraph 19(b) of the Conservative White Paper on the subject the corporation sets out a strategy for 36 million to 38 million tonnes by the first half of the 1980s, which was accepted in paragraph 29?

Mr. Benn: I will try to deal with the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for saying that he is glad to see that some jobs will be saved as a result of the review.
As I said, and as is made clear in the statement I put in the Library this morning, the closure proposals for Shotton are not only deferred but under further consideration. The relationship between Shotton and Port Talbot is one of the factors which are bound to come up in the further discussions.
As to the number of jobs forecast in the industry, I am bound to be speaking to some extent approximately because all the figures I have announced today are dependent on factors which are not entirely within our control. We are thinking in terms of 195,000 jobs in the steel industry in the mid-1980s but, because of the investment that will back them, they will represent much more secure employment than there would be in an industry which was not modernised.
On the question of the cost of deferring the closures, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that if the closures had proceeded at the rate indicated by the Conservative Government the imports of steel to this country or the loss of exports would have been very costly on our balance of payments.
Finally, on the capacity limit, we made clear at the outset of our discussions with the BSC that we did not set a firm capacity limit on the upward end of the wedge that had been identified by the previous Government, and the figure of 37 million tonnes, which I announced this afternoon represents the fastest realistic rate of acceleration in present world conditions.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Does the Secretary of State realise that, while Labour Members welcome the announcement about Shotton and East Moors, the statement will cause anger and dismay to the people of Ebbw Vale and North Gwent, for whom it represents the unacceptable face of nationalisation? Does the Secretary of State realise that it will be a devastating body-blow for North Gwent, which is already reeling from the effect of 700 redundancies in the last two months? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many redundancies he foresees in Ebbw Vale by 1st July this year and how many jobs he sees lost to Ebbw Vale by January next year? Has his Department worked out the overall job shortfall during those two periods?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend authentically speaks for his own area, and I accept that the passion in his voice and question genuinely speaks for his own people. The Ebbw Vale decision is forced upon us partly by the limit of capacity and the state of the blast furnaces, and that position has made it exceptionally difficult for my noble Friend in undertaking

his review. The Government are, as my hon. Friend will have read from the statement, taking special measures which include the announcement today of a £12·6 million programme of factory development, land clearance, water and sewerage. The chairman of the BSC is also making a statement today about jobs that will be available on a tide-over basis, and my hon. Friend should not forget that there is development in Ebbw Vale on the tinplate side.
I must not seek to conceal from the House that the Ebbw Vale problem, particularly in the interim, is one of legitimate concern to those who live there, to hon. Members who represent the area and to the House. But, as the statement happens to correspond with the publication of the Industry Bill, it will not have escaped the notice of my hon. Friend that the National Enterprise Board, with considerable resources at its disposal, will have as one of its prime concerns the creation of jobs in areas of unemployment.

Sir Anthony Meyer: May I take the opportunity of telling the right hon. Gentleman that there is great appreciation for the way in which Lord Beswick carried out his difficult task?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the initial feeling of relief in North Wales will shortly give way to the deep anxiety born of uncertainty? Is he satisfied that steelmaking can continue at Shotton until 1981 with the existing open-hearth furnaces? Is not a massive capital investment necessary now if steelmaking is to continue at Shotton for a further five years?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman will recall the proposed fate of Shotton under the Conservative White Paper. I am grateful to him for recognising that my noble Friend Lord Beswick, in considering carefully the proposals put forward by the Shotton workers, has come out with a solution that may prolong the uncertainty, but uncertainty may be better than a certain closure in an area with difficult prospects for new jobs and close to Merseyside, where the chronic problem of unemployment is of concern on many grounds.
We recognise that in coming forward with final conclusions about Shotton we


have to take into account the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the demand for fresh investment and to set it against other similarly unresolved matters about investment elsewhere. I think that what I have been able to say will go some way to reassure the people at Shotton.

Mr. Leadbitter: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the communities which will benefit from his announcement appreciate the urgency with which the noble Lord has carried out the review? Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement has brought substantial relief to Hartlepool? The considerable investment proposed for the tube mills is welcome. Nevertheless, the deferment of iron and steel production carries with it a degree of uncertainty, and uncertainty is not good for a plant unit of this size. Is my right hon. Friend's Department willing to receive further representations to enable a more permanent solution for Hartlepool to be reached?

Mr. Benn: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for being generous about the review and the way it was conducted, because it has not met everyone's point of view.
The plate mill decision has been deferred. There will, however, be jobs at Redcar, Lackenby, while the pipe mill investment of, I think, £25 million will bring special employment prospects. Meanwhile, there is to be a deferment until 1978 of the closures that had been anticipated. I feel sure that the Steel Corporation, myself and my noble Friend would be ready to continue to develop the relationship of trust and confidence we sought to build up during the review.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that these decisions will in no way prejudice the future and fullest development of the Scottish steel industry?

Mr. Benn: That is said both in the statement I have circulated and in the statement I made this afternoon. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity of repeating that.

Dr. Bray: Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is clear that both he and the noble Lord have made a real effort to

minimise redundancies arising from the steel programme? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the steel workers to whom I have spoken in Scotland accept his assurance that nothing said today will prejudice consideration of the future of the Scottish steel industry? Is he further aware that his request to the corporation to accept responsibility for the provision of new jobs to replace jobs lost in redundancies marks a major innovation for the public sector? Does he realise that we look forward to seeing how this policy will be worked out in a Scottish context?

Mr. Benn: I repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) about Scotland. My noble Friend will be visiting Scotland with the Prime Minister. He has done his first round of meetings carefully. We thought it right not to delay the interim statement until we had the whole picture, because it was not necessary and would have prolonged the uncertainty. As for the proposal made in my statement about the BSC assuming a wider responsibility, I am glad, but not surprised, that my hon. Friend has welcomed this, because he played a notable part in urging such a policy upon it. I hope that, having got so far, he will continue to press this and have it more fully examined.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I welcome any extension of steelmaking in the capital city of Cardiff? Does he accept that, without significant investment, there is a danger that the East Moors work force will cease to be viable by 1980?

Mr. Benn: The East Moors position—and I acknowledged this in my statement—represents a deferment. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have also made Cardiff a development area and doubled the regional employment premium. This statement must not, therefore, be seen in isolation. The statement I have made about East Moors and its future is still, as with these other closures, subject to replacement capacity. I hope that the fact that about 4,600 people have been granted a further deferment will make the problems of adjustment, which I do not underestimate, at any rate easier.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the greater proportion of his statement puts off closures for periods of two to four years, rather than cancelling them? Can he say whether during that period the Government are prepared to have consultations with all workers in the industry rather than the trade union movement in the industry, since it is a fact that the directors of the Steel Corporation refused to negotiate with the workers' committee at Shotton, as opposed to the trade union movement there—and I am prepared to produce letters from the corporation to that effect? Furthermore, if the Government are to consider possibilities for retraining in these places may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the possibility of the corporation obtaining grants from the EEC to help towards that end?

Mr. Benn: The provision for such help is there; I introduced the order which made it possible. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying, and I made this clear, that one of the results of the review has been to produce deferments. Deferment is important in that it gives time to create new jobs. Nothing has done more damage to the reputation of any industry than the idea that men are in some sense disposable.
The hon. Gentleman has done less than justice to the way in which my noble Friend conducted the review. It is true that there were problems at an early stage between the Shotton or Shelton action committees and the British Steel Corporation. There were certain problems associated with linking these consultations with the trade union movement at official level. These problems were all overcome at the tripartite meetings we had at the beginning when it was agreed—my noble Friend followed this—that there would be tripartite discussions with the BSC and the TUC steel committee at national level and discussions with Members of Parliament at every level in every area. The action committees were specially marshalled together with local authorities so that any problem of dignity or propriety in a trade union sense was overcome to allow these action committees to play their proper part with the local authorities in whose area they

operated. This is a remarkable example of flexibility in consultation.

Mr. Cant: As a member of the Shelton Steelworks Action Committee for the past three years, five months and two days, may I thank my right hon. Friend for setting up this review? May I also congratulate him, as others have done by implication, on the choice of his noble Friend to undertake the details of the review? Is he aware that Lord Beswick combined, in the opinion of everyone who met him, a wonderful compassion and an analytical quality of mind that was most impressive? May I assure my right hon. Friend that we are grateful for this review and say that from Shelton we give the assurance that we will continue to be a highly profitable centre of strike-free production?
May I ask whether there is any time scale fixed for the investment in the new arc furnaces? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of the work done by the Shelton Action Committee and others is impressive support for his thesis that it is time that workers played a much more active part in management?

Mr. Benn: I cannot answer the specific question about the timing of the electric arc furnaces. I will find out this afternoon and send a message to my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for his tribute to my noble Friend, who has worked hard on this and has impressed everyone with whom he has dealt. If he were in my place now he would wish to express the words of appreciation I now express to the people at Shelton, Shotton and other places where the quality and constructive nature of their contributions to the future of the industry in which they work made a deep and lasting impression on those who met them, as I did during my years of opposition, when they came to the House. This certainly shows that we ought to be making greater use throughout industry of that constructive spirit wherever we can do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This period is coming out of the time allotted to an important debate. I would ask hon. Members not to put questions which can


be tabled in the ordinary way and, if they can, to refrain from general observations of a complimentary nature or otherwise.

Mr. Wigley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House give qualified welcome regarding Shotton and East Moors but view with dismay the future of Ebbw Vale? On East Moors and Shotton, will he say whether the Government will come to as early a decision as possible, and, in the interim, does he expect the work force to dwindle as difficulty in recruitment arises? In regard to Ebbw Vale, will he give an absolute assurance that the proposals made by the Welsh Council were taken into consideration and that they will be published in due course? Will he give an assurance that alternative jobs are now definitely on the cards and are not something at the end of a rather uncertain pipeline?

Mr. Benn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales says that the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be published. As for the position of East Moors and Shotton, the situation of the two cases is slightly different because Shotton is subject to further review, whereas in the case of East Moors we are discussing a deferment. I wish I could say—and no doubt this applies to every Minister—that every job that goes will be replaced by another job. That is not the case. I express, and I must repeat, that there is anxiety about the short-term position, even though the BSC and the Government have done everything they possibly can to meet the problems concerning the workers involved. We shall keep closely in touch with them during that period.

Mr. Tinn: Does my right hon. Friend recall that on Teesside we have already suffered under the Conservative Government redundancies at least equal to most redundancies even foreshadowed in the previous proposals? In return for the acceptance by the workers on Teesside and their unions of those redundancies as part of the price of technological change, will he now give the go-ahead for full development at Redcar?

Mr. Benn: I cannot this afternoon go beyond what has been said about the Redcar developments which were

announced some time ago. But I recognise that on Teesside, as in many other steel and heavy engineering areas, there has been a rundown over a period, and even with new job creation—and there are a large number of jobs for men in prospect in the area—this gives some people the feeling that we are running up a down escalator. But I assure my hon. Friend that what has been decided is designed to minimise loss of jobs, deferring where possible, and we are bringing in new instruments, including the National Enterprise Board, with these problems very much in mind.

Mr. Churchill: What will be the cost to the taxpayer of the short-term deferment of the closures announced by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Benn: I cannot give the figure because the details of the Conservative Government's proposals for closures were themselves not realistic in the interests of the steel industry. The steel industry has not been producing steel at the rate required, and had these closures not been deferred there would have been a shortage of steel. Therefore, there is a gain to the economy as a whole by the measures which I have announced today. That factor also should be taken into account. We should also take into account the cost of paying people to do nothing, which does not make sense if one can possibly avoid it.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: In arriving at the figure of 37 million tonnes for 1980, will the Secretary of State tell the House to what extent account was taken of the successful energy conservation campaign, which would ultimately have had an effect on the amount of shipping required, the size of motor vehicle, and the demand for plate, strip and sheet in the years that lie ahead?

Mr. Benn: I said that the target at the highest rate of acceleration was realistic in certain circumstances, but the hon. Gentleman will know that I am not, and am not purporting to be, the management of the BSC. There are many variables, such as the development of North Sea oil, energy conservation and the effect of the level of world trade on domestic and international markets for steel. The BSC board must take account of those matters as best it can.

Mr. Crouch: The right hon. Gentleman made a statement about the deferment of closures in at least six areas of the steel industry. This has been essentially a social statement. Will he say what is the view of the British Steel Corporation about deferment of an economic regeneration in the steel industry?

Mr. Benn: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has got it all absolutely wrong. The fact is that we have managed to combine a deferment of closures with an equal development of BSC investment strategy, which has not been delayed in any sense. What is remarkable about my noble Friend's achievement is that he has been able to authorise the developments of coke ovens at Port Talbot and Redcar without its affecting his capacity to look at these particular closures. Therefore, although we have had to balance the long-term investment and expansion needs of the industry with social responsibilities, my noble Friend has found a solution that meets the needs of both. That is the achievement of the review.

Mr. Lambie: No matter what assurances are given in the House today, is my right hon. Friend aware that nobody in Scotland will accept that the changes which are proposed today will have other than a detrimental effect on the future of the Scottish steel industry? Today's statement in the present political climate in Scotland is a political diaster.

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend says that nobody in Scotland will accept it, but it depends on what he and other hon. Friends say in Scotland. If he and other of my hon. Friends leave the House today and say that what has been done will pre-empt the Scottish closure review, he will be accidentally misleading his fellow Scots, because my noble Friend who undertook the review did so against exactly the same background of initial cynicism that this was just a public relations exercise. I heard that said by many people in the first few weeks. It was not the case. The review I have announced today was not a public relations exercise. Hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, and other Ministers, who have not been able to make public comment inside or outside the Government,

have made powerful arguments that have been reflected in the review. What is thought in Scotland tomorrow may depend more on what my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) says than on what I myself say.

Mr. Crawford: In that case will the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the assurances about the Scottish steel industry which he gave to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) and the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) with the statement made to me in a letter by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in which the Prime Minister said that he accepted that redundancies in the Scottish steel industry were inevitable?

Mr. Benn: Nobody, least of all I myself, has ever said that as a result of revised strategy one can avoid some change in the structure of industry. [Interruption.] We have never said that one can modernise a steel industry which had been denied investment which it needed for years without some human consequences. What we have to do is to reconcile the need for a go-ahead modernised steel industry with a proper sense of social responsibility and the development of instruments which should allow people to find other work. We shall do that in Scotland as we shall do it in England and Wales.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the Secretary of State accept that it is not sufficient to say that the Scottish steel industry is being considered? Will he accept that what is needed in Scotland is an integrated steel industry which does not merely form a part of the BSC but is geared to needs of Scotland itself?

Mr. Benn: I accept—I know enough about Scotland to know—that these feelings are acutely held by the Scots, and particularly by Scottish steelworkers. It would be a great tragedy if Scottish steelworkers were pitted against English and Welsh steelworkers. In the long run the future of those who work in the steel industry in Scotland, Wales and England and their security depend on a modernised steel industry. I believe that what we are seeking to achieve will combine all this with a proper interest in a vigorous modernised industry in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman said that 13,500 jobs were to be saved. Will he give the House his revised estimate of redundancies in the next five years? On the general question of redundancies, will he take the opportunity to pay tribute to the BSC management, which throughout the original proposals and these proposals have put forward views which it thought were in the best interests of all its work force in the long term? Finally, will he confirm that the BSC has already been carrying out considerable work on site clearance and other activities which provide opportunities for commercial interests to offer alternative employment opportunities? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Government initiatives in this matter a public relations exercise?

Mr. Benn: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman spoilt his supplementary question, for I certainly agree with him in paying tribute to the BSC. The board's members put forward the management point of view as to what they thought should be done. I have never criticised them, and never complained that they put their views. But where so many jobs are at stake and where an industry's future is under discussion, the accountability to Parliament and to Members of Parliament of those who work in the industry is right and proper.
I cannot forecast the exact pattern of employment, because this is an interim report. It hinges on other matters which are not yet absolutely resolved. But the hon. Gentleman would be doing a grave disservice, even to the steel industry, if he were to imply that what has been announced today is the result merely of a public relations exercise. That is not true, as the figures show. Very large numbers of jobs are being kept open long enough, at any rate, to ensure that alternative job opportunities can be created, and some reversal of existing policy has been brought about.

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) a second time, reluctantly, for one question.

Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Speaker, the question has been asked three times but it has not yet been answered: how many jobs are to be lost in the British steel industry over the next five years?

Mr. Benn: I have answered the question many times. This is an interim report. I cannot answer questions about the next five years until the review is completed and until the Scottish position has been examined, as I have said many times.

Following is the report:

STEEL CLOSURE REVIEW:

Interim Report by Lord Beswick, Minister of State, Department of Industry

In statements on 23rd May the Secretary of State for Industry and I announced the procedures we had agreed with the British Steel Corporation and the TUC Steel Committee for conducting the review of the proposed closures of steelworks which we had promised in the Labour Party's Programme for Britain: 1973.

2. Last year we accepted the Corporation's proposals for Stanton and Irlam as their arrangements for closure were already very far advanced. At Workington, with the closure of Bessemer steelmaking, the Corporation gave me assurances that the plant had a long-term future as one of their major centres of rail-making and that the coke ovens would be fully maintained pending decisions on their long-term future.

3. I have now completed my review of the Corporation's proposed closures of Ebbw Vale, East Moors, Hartlepool iron and steelmaking, Cleveland ironmaking and Shelton, but have decided that further study is needed of the proposed closure at Shotton. My review has not covered Bilston since the Corporation have put forward no proposals for closure there. Consultations on the BSC's development strategy in Scotland and their proposals for Hartlepool and Consett plate mills continue. The workforces concerned rightly wish to have further opportunity to present alternative proposals and this will take more time. To reduce uncertainty as much as possible I make this report to Parliament on the position now reached. Nothing announced today will adversely affect the review of the BSC's proposals for Scotland or of unfinished cases elsewhere.

4. In each case covered by the Report, I have held tripartite meetings with the BSC and the TUC Steel Industry Consultative Committee together with local representatives of the workers from each plant. I have met with the constituency Members of Parliament, with local authorities and other interested parties, and have visited each plant and had further discussions with the workers involved. I have been given every help and assistance by the Corporation, and I have been immensely pressed by the positive and constructive attitude of management, trade unions and indeed workers at all levels.

5. The review has been principally concerned to help the development of a successful and expanding steel industry, essential for the country as a whole and for all those who work in the steel industry, both providing the best prospects of long term employment for steelworkers and reducing to a minimum the disturbance to the life and livelihood of steelworkers and their communities.

6. We have considered the BSC's capacity "target" announced in the Command Paper 5226 of February 1973 to see if a higher target would help to save more of the plants the BSC propose to close. That target was equivalent to 35 to 37 million tonnes of liquid steel (after adjustment for developments in 1973). The Corporation now propose to accelerate their development strategy and to achieve 37 million tonnes a year in the early 1980s. Our present conclusion is that this is as high as can be realistically expected given the market possibilities and the time inevitably taken in planning and construction.

7. We have already agreed that the Corporation should go ahead with the £210 million Redcar IIB iron and steelmaking project, and we have welcomed BSC's plans for expanding stainless steel capacity at a cost of some £60 million. My report today will enable the BSC to proceed with the proposed expansion of billet making at Normanby Park and Consett. The Corporation submitted to us very recently a proposal for the construction of new coke ovens and coal-handling plant at Port Talbot at a cost of £64 million. We have now agreed to this. The Corporation have just submitted proposals for further expansion at Port Talbot, and these will be urgently examined. There is no doubt that further substantial investment at Port Talbot will be needed.

8. In the case of East Moors, I have looked carefully at the various proposals ably put forward by the workforce as a means of saving the plant by modernisation. After making every allowance for transport costs, other advantages of close proximity to customers, the effects of the rescheduling of Cardiff as a development area, and the benefits offered by the submerged injection process, we have reluctantly concluded that significant investment cannot be justified. However, in the light of the review, the BSC now propose that the closure, initially set for not earlier than January 1976, should be deferred until not earlier than January 1980. Even this must remain subject to the proviso that adequate supplies of steel of the right qualities are available then from BSC developments elsewhere for processing by GKN in Cardiff in conjunction with the 400,000 tonnes per annum electric arc plant which GKN are now building there. Meanwhile, the deferment we have sought will give us more time to work out new plans for alternative employment.

9. At Hartlepool, BSC now accept that, in the light of the review, the closure of iron and steelmaking, initially set for 1975–76, be deferred at least until 1978. We cannot justify major new investment in steelmaking at Hartlepool, but steelmaking there will continue for at least two extra years and any closure then would still be subject to the proviso that adequate replacement iron and steel are available by then from Redcar/Lackenby.

10. About 24,000 jobs in steel will still remain in the Cleveland area. BSC propose to invest some £25 million in developing the two existing pipe mills at Hartlepool so as to produce a greater range of pipes and also higher specifications to meet North Sea oil

requirements. This should provide some 200–250 new job opportunities. The deferment now agreed will provide more time to work out new plans for alternative employment. The Corporation's own plans provide for substantial recruitment at South Teesside in the next four years. The Government will study urgently how the daily travel facilities from Hartlepool to Redcar can be improved so as to facilitate Hartlepool steelworkers taking up employment at Redcar.

11. BSC propose to close some old iron-making plant at the Cleveland works over the period 1975–78 but there will be every opportunity for workers at the plant to take up employment at BSC Redcar and on that basis the proposals are acceptable.

12. On Shelton, BSC have reconsidered their plans in the light of all the representations made during the course of the review. The Corporation now propose to construct an electric arc steelmaking plant with a capacity of up to 350,000 tonnes a year to replace the existing iron and steelmaking plant. This will feed the existing continuous-casting plant; will ensure a long term future for steelmaking at Shelton; will preserve approximately 800 jobs which would otherwise have been lost; and, I am confident, will be welcomed by the workforce and the local authorities.

13. In the case of Shotton, I have carefully considered the BSC proposals in the light of the informed and thoroughly documented representations made by the workers, local authorities and other interested parties. At Shotton as at other traditional steelmaking centres there is a valuable heritage of a skilled and loyal workforce, and potential for development there must if at all possible be utilised. I consider that further study is needed of the economics of modernised steelmaking at Shotton and its implications for BSC's proposals elsewhere and this study has now been put in hand. The Corporation have meanwhile agreed to defer their proposed date for the closure of iron and steelmaking to 1980–81. In the meantime work is going ahead on developing the finishing plant at Shotton. A highly modern cold-reduction mill is now commissioned there, and work is under way on a £30 million coating complex. Further expansion in finishing is now being studied.

14. My review has convinced me that we cannot justify large new investment in iron and steelmaking at Ebbw Vale. Representatives of the workforce there put their case with as much force and skill and determination as the spokesmen of the other plants, and it is doubtless these qualities and the great tradition of steelmaking at Ebbw Vale which has kept the plant operating a decade beyond what might have been considered viable. But the limited capacity of the plant itself compels me to conclude that we must accept the closure dates of 1975–77 proposed by the BSC for different sections of iron and steelmaking there. The hot mill must also close eventually, but the closure date now proposed by BSC for 1978–79 must be dependent on adequate supplies of hot rolled coil for processing at Ebbw Vale becoming clearly available from other plants. Ebbw Vale is already an important tinplate works


and the Corporation are committed to a programme of far reaching modernisation. Work is under way on a £40 million development scheme, and the Corporation plan to follow this as soon as possible with a second stage development, incorporating modern cold reduction facilities, to cost at least £30 million. These projects, together with developments at the Corporation's other Welsh tinplate works, should ensure for the Principality a position of pre-eminence in the world's tinplate industry.

15. Since the closure is imminent in iron and steelmaking at Ebbw Vale, it should be possible for both the Government and the Corporation to concentrate immediate efforts here to secure the establishment of more diversified employment alongside the development of the tinplate complex. Discussions with the Chairman of the Corporation about detailed phasing of redundancies and the provision of new jobs have already begun. In Ebbw Vale as elsewhere, of course, the services of the Manpower Services Commission and its agencies will be available and eager to help. However, the Ebbw Vale decision creates a situation which will demand the fullest co-operation of the Corporation with the Government to demonstrate that this challenge to our ability to combine social responsibility with the modernisation programme will be properly met. Special provision is to be made by the Corporation for alternative employment at the plant itself during these critical twelve months ahead, but the responsibility of the Corporation to give direct assistance with the provision of new jobs, including direct participation in individual projects, will be a continuing one. In addition the Government will play its part by putting into effect other measures to assist in the provision of new employment and to improve infrastructure. £12·6 million will be spent on factory building, clearance of derelict land, water and sewerage schemes and assistance to local authorities for the preparation of industrial sites.

16. It is the policy of the Government to ensure that everything possible is done to pro-

Cases considered
Number of job opportunities involved
Original proposed date of closure
Outcome


Shotton (Iron and steelmaking and hot rolling).
6,000
Phased closure 1976–78
Further study needed of economics of new steel plant. Meanwhile BSC defer their proposed closure date to 1980–81. Development of finishing plant, saving 500 jobs or more.


Shelton (Iron and steelmaking)
…
1,700
1976
New electric arc plant to be built with saving of approximately 800 jobs.


East Moors (Total plant closure)
4,700
Not before January 1976
Closure deferred to not before January 1980.


Ebbw Vale (Blast furnaces, steel plant and slabbing mill).
3,300
1975–77
BSC proposal agreed. Further development of tin plating.


Ebbw Vale (Hot strip mill)
…
1,300
1978–79
Closure to be dependent on adequate supplies becoming clearly available from elsewhere.


Hartlepool (Coke ovens, sinter plant, blast furnaces, steel plant and slabbing mill).
2,800
1975–76
Closure deferred to 1978 at earliest, Pipe mills to be developed.


South Teesside—Cleveland Works(Coke ovens, sinter plant and blast furnace).
1,400
1975–78
No change to BSC proposals given new job opportunities at Redcar.

vide alternative employment in areas affected. We have also decided to ask the Corporation to accept a special responsibility both in the phasing of redundancies and, to as great an extent as possible, for the provision of new job opportunities in steel-related and other projects. This latter concept, which we hope Parliament will welcome, needs to be examined and discussed more fully but it could introduce a new dimension into redundancy problems in the public sector.

17. The Government have, of course, been considering other measures to assist the provision of new employment and to improve infrastructure in the areas affected. Much has been done, or is already in hand, including the generous use of selective assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act, factory building, derelict land clearance, road schemes and accelerated clearance of unfit housing. Further measures which we are considering include site and factory provision in all areas, help to local authorities in site preparation, improved roads, and assistance with water and sewerage schemes. The deferments in proposed closure dates will provide more time for this work to be done.

18. This interim report on the Government's review of the BSC strategy will, I hope, be acceptable to those who work in the industry and to Parliament. It represents the first results of the most extensive and open examination of the plans for a Public Corporation, requiring it to justify its proposals in detail in the light of its social responsibilites. The outcome, so far, preserves some 13,500 jobs for two to four years or more through deferments of proposed closures at East Moors, Hartlepool and Shotton, saves approximately 800 jobs permanently at Shelton and leaves the future of steelmaking at Shotton for further consideration. Moreover, the rôle of the BSC in creating new job opportunities to replace jobs to be phased out constitutes an important development in thinking about the rôle of public enterprise.

BILL PRESENTED

DISABLEMENT COMMISSIONER BILL

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, supported by Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. Ivor Clemitson, Mr. Ioan Evans, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Neil Marten, Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. Donald Stewart, and Mr. Dafydd Thomas, presented a Bill to increase the powers of the Secretary of State in respect of a local authority which is in default of its duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Acts 1970: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th July, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,
That the draft International Cocoa Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (AMENDMENT)

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Health and Safety at Work &amp;c. Act 1974 so as to ensure that no provisions of that Act shall in any way remove, reduce or limit the application of any provisions, in force at the commencement of that Act, imposing absolute liability in respect of health and safety at work.
This is a one-clause Bill which seeks only to clarify and to improve the Health and Safety at Work Act. Health and safety legislation needs to be strictly applied in view of the appalling loss of life and limb which goes on year after year in industry. I know that hon. Members are gravely concerned at this daily level of violence in industry, especially hon. Members in opposition, because every time an hon. Member on this side of the House mentions the Shrewsbury pickets many hon. Members on the Tory benches become purple and speak about violence used in picketing, although no violence was involved in the convictions against the Shrewsbury two.
I am certain, therefore, that the violence in industry which caused 920 death in 1971, 862 in 1972 and 895 in 1973 and which annually results in between 17 million and 20 million days' lost production—far greater than any such loss due to strike action—is a cause for great concern on all sides. Over the years various Acts have been passed by this House in an attempt to require industry to become safer. The Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and the Factories Act 1961 are two of the most important. However, the Health and Safety at Work Act gives powers to a Minister to modify and repeal, either in part or in whole, every Act affecting work in industry and mining, from the Explosives Act, 1875 to the Employment Medical Advisory Service Act, 1972.
Part I of the Health and Safety at Work Act empowers the Minister to make regulations and to approve codes of practice progressively to replace virtually the whole of existing legislation. Nobody would object to a tidying-up of the existing laws, but what is greatly feared is that a Minister, acting with the best of


intentions, would replace some important section of an Act which imposes an absolute safety obligation, such as Section 14 of the Factories Act, 1961, with a code of practice or a weaker regulation. Such a move would be entirely within Part I of the Health and Safety at Work Act which provides that the regulations and codes of practice will be
designed to maintain and improve the standards of health safety and welfare …
Clearly, no Minister would produce codes designed to lower standards, but the substitution of a code of practice, for an absolute obligation might have that effect no matter how virtuous the design.
Consequently, my Bill will clarify this needlessly obscure position. It states:
Nothing in the principal Act shall permit the Secretary of State to remove or limit the application of the provisions imposing absolute liability contained in any of the relevant statutory provisions or any regulations, orders or other instruments made thereunder.
The Health and Safety at Work Act contains yet more differences. The section setting out the general duties of an employer with regard to safety and health contains the words
so far as is reasonably practicable
some 14 times, and it is of some concern that these general duties might be regarded as superseding the absolute provisions of, say, Section 14 of the Factories Act, 1961, under which dangerous machinery has to be guarded. The words "reasonably practicable" have been held to imply a calculation of the cost of protection against the danger to a worker. They place a price on safety and a price on life. Those same words,
so far as is reasonably practicable
occurred many times in the Mines and Quarries Bill. Labour Members fought successfully to get them excluded. The same struggle occurred during the Committee stage of what was to become the Factories Act, 1961.
It would be an ironic quirk if the high standards of safety in those two Acts were reduced as a result of some judicial decision arising from the Health and Safety at Work Act which applied the words
so far as is reasonably practicable
across the board. Such a decision would also apply to Section 1 of the Mines and

Quarries (Tips) Act 1969. This prosaic title hides an event that deeply shocked our nation when one horrible morning a tip slid down a hill and buried a school, and the name "Aberfan" became a synonym for tragedy. The Act that was subsequently passed did not say that "Tips shall be made and kept secure so far as is reasonably practicable." It said simply,
Every tip to which this Part of this Act applies shall be made and kept secure.
It imposed an absolute duty, because the death and tragedy of Aberfan allowed for nothing less.
Death in industry is not so stark and dramatic, but the figures are grim enough. In almost every newspaper, tucked away in a corner, is a report of a trench falling in, some machinery slipping or an explosion. Sometimes there is a huge explosion, as a Flixborough, where we are led to understand a by-pass pipe was connected that was apparently safe "so far as reasonably practicable".
Whenever there is a demand for legislative improvement there are dramatic arguments against it. In the Mines and Quarries Bill it was said that if the words
so far as is reasonably practicable
were excluded, the National Coal Board members would have personally to inspect every safety device and would face imprisonment for breach. To date this has not happened. No National Coal Board members have been sent to gaol, at least not for breaches of safety regulations.
The Minister concerned with the Health and Safety at Work Act said that to preserve the absolute provisions of the Mines and Quarries Act and the Factories Act would defeat the whole spirit and purpose of the Act by making it difficult and legally risky to rationalise, up-date and improve on existing legislation. What utter nonsense! The attitude of the Minister, combined with the hitherto inert attitude of the factory inspectorate in prosecuting for breaches, makes it even more important to pass my Bill. The view of those experienced in industrial law differs from that of that Minister.
A solicitor who has been concerned with a large number of asbestosis cases in the North of England and has much


practical legal experience has written to me as follows:
I am a solicitor. I act for trade union members who have accidents at work. May I ask you to consider a point on the Health and Safety at Work Bill? Could the Government make it clear that absolute duties in forthcoming safety regulations will not be ultra vires in the light of the 'reasonably practicable' provisions in Clause 2? Absolute duties do more for safety than qualified duties. They also make it easier to get compensation for the injured.
I fear that future regulations will be like the recent abrasive wheels regulations, which substitute for the Factories Act, 1961. They replace the absolute duty to guard grindstones (Section 14) by a qualified duty. It is harder now to get compensation for men injured on such wheels. I suspect it is more difficult for factory inspectors to prosecute.
If future regulations require occupiers to do no more than is reasonably practicable there will be a step backwards for workers in industry.
I have had some experience of conditions endured by constituents of yours in Keighley who work in the foundries there. In my view they and the Factory Inspectorate need all the help they can get. Their employers should be kept in line by absolute duties not qualified ones.
In my view, it is important to retain at least those sections of our laws imposing absolute duties and to prevent any watering down. I hope that the House will endorse this Bill and so ensure that the trade union movement and the mass of working people, which is growing increasingly aware of the weaknesses as well as the strengths of the Health and Safety at Work Act, can see that some action to improve the legislation is being undertaken by this House, hopefully, with the endorsement of the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Richard Kelley, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Peter Snape, Mr. John Golding, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick, Mr. Geoff Edge, Mr. Alexander Wilson, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Bryan Davies.

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Bob Cryer accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Health and Safety at Work &c. Act 1974 so as to ensure that no provisions of that Act shall in any way remove, reduce or limit the applica-

tion of any provisions, in force at the commencement of that Act, imposing absolute liability in respect of health and safety at work: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21st February; and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

DEVOLUTION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State for Wales, I want to point out to the House that there were only 12 back-bench speeches yesterday. Five of these lasted over 20 minutes, two were 19 minutes long and two were 18 minutes long.
I wish very much that I had added to my discretions one to impose a time limit, at least for part of a debate. I hope very much that today hon. Members will not follow the example, if I may say so, of the Leader of Plaid Cymru, who spoke for 28 minutes yesterday, while he and his hon. Friends made seven interruptions in other speeches. Their chances are not very high today. I ask hon. Members to try to aim at speeches lasting for 10 to 12 minutes.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can anticipate the hon. Lady. The Leader of the Scottish National Party was very good. He spoke for only 11 minutes, so do not spoil it, please.

Mrs. Ewing: That was what I was going to say.

4.31 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said that he would be listening with great interest to what right hon. and hon. Members had to say. I, too, have been listening to the debate with the greatest attention. Of one thing there can be no doubt—the importance that the Government have attached to the whole subject of devolution, and as a member of the Government there is no need for me to tell the


House the importance that I myself attach to it.
Not unnaturally, the interest of individual Members will vary, but, not unexpectedly at this time, a much greater interest will be shown among my fellow Members from the Principality and Members from Scotland. But those concerned as Ministers in the work of furthering the Government's ideas on devolution, in putting flesh on the bones, in turning ideas and aspirations into hard legislative proposals, will carefully listen to what all right hon. and hon. Members have to say.
My personal commitment is well known. I take pride in the steps that Labour Governments have taken in bringing government closer to the people. It was a Labour Government who appointed the first Secretary of State for Wales. Last year, we celebrated the tenth anniversary of the Welsh Office. Its powers have grown under two different administrations. Those who scoffed ten years ago now acknowledge its success. No one wants to turn the clock back—that was the message, loud and clear, during last summer.
We also take pride in having appointed the Royal Commission on the Constitution, and it will be a Labour Government, dedicated to democratising the whole machinery of government, to bringing government and decision making closer to the people, who will advance further along the path we then started to tread. We have a twofold aim. There is the need to ensure that the peoples of Wales and Scotland are able to have a decisive voice in their own domestic affairs, and at the same time it is essential to preserve the political and economic unity of the United Kingdom.
It was interesting at the last General Election to note that those who were most strident in Wales in shouting at the hustings, "Implement Kilbrandon" were separatists who wanted to tear apart the bonds which welded us together, a number of different nations, into one country. Yet the Kilbrandon Report never, in any of its proposals, countenanced separatism or even federalism.
In the debates since the report was published, we must distinguish between those who sincerely advocate different forms of devolution and those whose

commitment is to separatism, which is the negation of the whole thesis of Kilbrandon. Whatever one would propose would always be criticised by some as a step short of the next stage.
I do not believe that in Wales there is any significant demand for separatism or even federalism. Certainly, in my long consultations throughout last summer, it did not manifest itself to me. I believe, however, that there is a genuine demand to change our pattern of government in Wales so as to bring the process of decision making closer to the ordinary people who are affected by it. Democratic control over the institutions that govern us must be extended.
Wales and Scotland are both proud nations. We have maintained our national identities. The centuries have not dimmed them. Indeed, the feeling of belonging together has strengthened in the face of the storms which have been weathered. Who would have dared to prophesy at the beginning of the century, with two world wars to fight, that this would be so? Whether it be a village settlement, a long-established industrial community or a nation, one does not lightly throw aside the sense of community which can be such a firm foundation for the building of a new governmental structure.
What we are considering will necessarily have far-reaching consequences for the United Kingdom. The fact that solutions may be novel does not in my view constitute an argument against them. Novelty and innovation have never been regarded as obstacles to reform on this side of the House. What is important is that we adopt solutions which are the right ones—the solutions which are expected by the majority of our peoples in Wales and Scotland, the solutions that will ensure the fulfilment at the outset of our twin aims of unity and greater democracy.
I turn now to the question of the timetable. I appreciate that many hon. Members are anxious for us to move ahead with all possible speed. In the face of what we have done already since taking office, no one can seriously contend that we are hanging back. A great deal of work is already in hand and a great deal of ground has been covered.
Immediately following the last General Election, I set up a new devolution division to strengthen and co-ordinate work


on the subject within my Department. At the same time, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), undertook special responsibility within the Welsh Office for devolution matters. Our aim is to bring the proposals before Parliament as quickly as possible, but our first priority must be that of getting the right answers to problems of the greatest magnitude and complexity.
In our White Paper, we proposed forms of devolution different in some respects for Wales and for Scotland. In making these distinctive proposals, we recognise that the two countries have different historical backgrounds, distinctive existing governmental structures, and different systems of law. We do not feel that what is right for one country must be copied slavishly in the other. I believe that we know what we want in Wales, and we want to get on with it.
There have been calls for the same kind of devolution to be adopted for the Principality as that proposed for Scotland, but I am more concerned with the substance of devolution than the form which it takes. I am more concerned that the end product should be suitable, stable and fully acceptable government in Wales. What we do now must satisfy and must be done in such a way that it will endure. Acceptability is therefore vital. It is essential that, when the Welsh Assembly begins to function, it should do so not against a background of petty criticism but with the support of the ordinary people of Wales.
The House will be aware that I am not attracted to the devolution of primary legislative powers to the Welsh Assembly. There is, first of all, no general demand for it. Indeed, many would be deeply opposed. Many of the legislative needs of Wales and England are often identical and usually similar. The broad pattern of legislation has served us well. I am not attracted to having a difference for difference's sake. It is important that what we devise for Wales fulfils the objective of devolving real executive powers—that is, powers of policy making—as well as that of putting these policies into operation. I believe that what we propose meets that objective.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Concerning the demand for legislative functions for the Welsh Assembly, if there is no demand in Wales, on what basis does the right hon. and learned Gentleman base the demand in Scotland—on the vote of the Scottish National Party in Scotland? Secondly, when it is said that Scotland has its own legal system, is it not the case that over the two and a half centuries since Scotland and England united, that fact has not led to a separate Assembly? Is it not the case that it is the substance of legislation that matters and not the colour of the ink in which it is written?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Scots already have their own form of lawmaking which takes place in this House. If he speaks of a demand, he knows that his party's vote has gone down in three General Elections from 175,000 to 166,000 now. I commend these words for his consideration, if no more:
Initially, the exact powers of the assembly are not vitally important. They can be adjusted according to the needs of the time and the wishes of the people of Wales. The important thing is to get an elected assembly established without delay.
That is a quotation from the Welsh Nationalist leaflet in February 1974. I find it odd to hear now the carping criticism of what we seek to do.
I am seeking to put before the House policies that will be accepted and effective. There are those who now seek to denigrate executive devolution. They denigrated the establishment of the Welsh Office and they sneered—I recall those sneers—at the setting up of the Kilbrandon Commission. They also fail to recognise that executive devolution is bold and radical with Westminster yielding enormous powers of policy making and implementation to a directly elected Welsh Assembly.
Although as Secretary of State my decisions occasionally involve legislative action, the overwhelming proportion of them involve the exercise of executive powers. I make crucial decisions over the allocation of resources available to me for the development of our schools, roads, health service and housing. I do so through executive decisions. No one has suggested that I do not have power and major responsibility in these areas that matter so much to our people. These are


the kind of decisions the Assembly would have to take. They would have to shoulder the burden of allocating the block grant.
Within many subjects there is a whole range of decision making which is executive, the whole pattern of road development and transport—the priority we are giving to our main strategic links such as the M4 and the A55 is promoted by executive action, and in the same way the whole pattern of education. Is there anything in the type of executive policy making at this level which bears any resemblance to that of a local authority? The critics have failed to understand.
I followed with interest what the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) said yesterday. When commenting on our road pattern, and speaking of a North-to-South road, he said,
But now the people of Wales can do nothing about it. They cannot decide even to build a road for themselves. I wonder whether their power will be any greater when they have their elected Assembly."—[Official Report, 3rd February 1974; Vol. 885, c. 1009.]
What nonsense. First, I could, as Secretary of State, decide to give priority to this road. I have not done so because I and no one else would accord it that priority. The priority is to ensure that there is built speedily a good M4 motorway and an A55 in the north. Those are the important roads to ensure that our centres of production can send their goods to the areas of consumption.
Our proposals for executive devolution have not been understood. I wish to educate the critics on this point. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) will keep quiet, he will hear my point in due course. There can be a little courtesy in the House of Commons and, I hope, in the Welsh Assembly as well.
Under our proposals for executive devolution, it would be possible for an elected Assembly to decide to allocate priority for such a road. Perhaps it will be a rude awakening to the members of Plaid Cymru when they find that the democratic decisions of the Assembly do not accord with the priority they seek to give to their own projects.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In taking the large executive decisions about which the right hon. and learned

Gentleman has told us, is he acting upon collective Cabinet responsibility or upon his personal responsibility?

Mr. Morris: If the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) had read the two White Papers published last year, he would know of the indications we gave and the views of the Government. With respect, I presume that he did not read the White Papers we presented on that occasion.
Last summer, during our consultations with bodies representing a wide spectrum of Welsh opinion, we ascertained as best we could the views of those bodies. It is worth mentioning the views of the Welsh local authorities, whether expressed through their associations or individually. Those were overwhelmingly in favour of an executive form of devolution for the Principality. They were of course, and still are, understandably concerned that their present functions should remain with them. We made clear in the White Paper that the Welsh Assembly would not be expected to assume existing powers from local government. I repeat that commitment now and draw hon. Members' attention to it.
I now wish to consider in more detail what the powers of the Welsh Assembly might be. We have already decided provisionally that the Assembly will have a block expenditure allocation voted by the United Kingdom Parliament. It will be for the Assembly to judge its own expenditure priorities within that block allocation. This would give the Assembly considerable powers of decision in an area which is now reserved to central Government.
The Assembly will also have wide powers in terms of delegated legislation. It is true that under the present framework there are considerable variations as between different subjects of Government. In some areas, wide powers of delegated legislation are conferred. In others, primary legislation is far more specific.
Devolution means a quite new partnership between Parliament on the one hand and the Welsh Assembly on the other. In the development of this partnership, new principles will almost certainly evolve which may make the primary framework more general with regard to Wales, laying down broad principles and


leaving the Assembly to fill these out by means of delegated legislation. This I visualise as a growth area for the Assembly, and that is not the only legislative rôle the Assembly might have. It may be possible to involve it in the legislative process and devise a means for it to bring its views on primary legislation affecting Wales to the attention of Parliament.
Further, the Welsh Assembly will assume responsibility for the work of nominated bodies within Wales. This would transfer to the Assembly a substantial block of powers and would at the same time extend democratic control into many areas which for too long have been remote from it. In Wales, we have had a surfeit of nominated bodies, and it is high time that they became politically accountable.
Finally, the Assembly will exercise certain of my present powers, many of which are not detailed in legislation. All this will give the Assembly considerable discretion to govern as it chooses, subject only to primary legislation, financial constraints imposed by the block expenditure allocation and any special provision which we might apply to both the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies to deal with cases where their activities might conflict with the essential interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.
What I have just described would amount to a formidable set of responsibilities and powers if devolved to the Welsh Assembly. They would nevertheless take account of the distinctive needs of Wales and the wishes of the Welsh people. For these reasons, I am satisfied that our proposals contained in the White Paper are right for the Principality.
I now turn to particular problems which arise on the work and operation of the Assembly and on its relationship with Parliament and the central Government.
One question which has given rise to no little interest is the form of Executive to be established. Broadly, as hon. Members will know, there are two options. The devolved powers might be vested either in a ministerial executive—that is, the system that we have here in Westminster—or in the Assembly as a whole and administered through Committees of the Assembly.
The choice between what might conveniently be called a ministerial system and a committee system is by no means straightforward. Both have their advantages and disadvantages in the context of Welsh devolution. One advantage of the ministerial system is its familiarity to people in this country. We are well used to an arrangement under which individuals holding government responsibility are closely identifiable and can be held accountable for what they do. In the Westminster environment, this works reasonably well. At least, many think so, though the system is not free from criticism.
On the other hand, we need to bear in mind that we are seeking to make the system of government for Wales as democratic and open as we can. I believe there is merit in an arrangement in which there is wide consultation and opportunity for the sharing of power among the representatives of the interests affected. One way of achieving this is the adoption of a system of executive committees, each of which would so far as practicable reflect the balance of representation in the Assembly as a whole.
Another question concerns relations between Parliament and the Government on the one hand and the Assembly on the other. Devolution will call for co-operation and good will. Indeed, without these, it cannot be made to work. There is no reason to believe that both sides will not have the interests of Wales at heart, and, with this as the guiding principle, a true partnership in government should be possible.
We have a long tradition, whatever our political views on the issues of the day, of a responsible system of government at every level. I have no anxiety on this score when we devolve governmental functions within the United Kingdom.
Important elements in the Assembly's freedom are the width and depth of its responsibilities. We are carrying out a detailed study of the complex considerations involved in delegating responsibilities for such subjects as health, education, roads and housing. As the White Paper made clear, the intention is that the Assembly should undertake many of the executive functions now carried out by myself. We fully intend to honour that pledge.
A great deal of work is in hand in studying the problems involved. Much of our present legislation, which was not of course drafted with devolution in mind, allows wide latitude to Ministers of the central Government. By and large, the Assembly should have similarly wide discretion, but we have to examine with particular care those matters which Parliament deliberately intended to operate uninformly throughout Great Britain, for instance the qualifications and conditions of employment attaching to various professions.
Concern has been expressed over the position of the Civil Service after devolution. Consultations have already taken place between the Government and the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council, about the implications of devolution for the Civil Service. We are most anxious to ensure that the interests of the staff of Government Departments are taken fully into account, and I have myself discussed these matters with the Welsh Office Staff Side. I fully understand the issues which worry them, and I want to assure them that I will pay the closest regard to their views.
Before I leave questions relating to the operation of the Assembly, I should like to touch briefly on the matter of nomenclature, which is not without significance, especially in Wales. The name given to the Assembly needs to be right, both in English and Welsh. I have said in the past that I am unhappy about the way that the word "Assembly" is translated into Welsh. In saying that, I am no way blaming the translators. The word "Assembly" in English seems to have gained broad acceptability, and it fits our conception. One suggestion which seems to have support is that the equivalent to the word "Assembly" in English should be the word "Senedd" in Welsh. These are not precise synonyms, but it may be thought that they carry the right connotations in both languages. There is also the question of what title should be given to members of the Assembly. It should of course be readily distinguishable from that applied to hon. Members of this House. In these as in other matters, I shall welcome further suggestions.
I turn now to the future rôle of the Secretary of State for Wales. I heard a great deal about this during the long

consultations last summer. From our consultations in Wales and from the representations which we received, it is clear that there is a widespread—I think I may say almost universal—desire that there should be a strong continuing rôle for the Secretary of State. This, I must say with all modesty, I take to be a tribute to the office, rather than to anyone who has occupied it or to myself as the present occupant. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) will not take that amiss. But there was great concern that the office should have a strong position. The problem is, of course, how to achieve this desirable aim if many of the powers formerly exercised by the occupant are devolved to the Assembly.
These are stirring times in the evolution of the machinery of government in Wales. Not only are we now taking decisive action to create a Welsh Assembly, but we are also engaged in creating new institutions to deal with the particular needs of Wales. I have in mind the proposed Wales Land Authority and the Welsh Development Agency. Furthermore, the rôle of the Secretary of State is being extended into new areas. As the House will know, as from 1st July, I shall be responsible for the administration of selective financial assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act. This is a major development since it involves crossing a new threshold into a completely new area of activity for my office.
There will also be the vital rôle of watching over the interests of Wales when legislation affecting the Principality is passing through this House. Again, the Secretary of State will have an important responsibility in advocating the claims of Wales within the central Government when national resources are being allocated.
Finally, there will be a liaison function with respect to the relationship between the Assembly and Westminster. Therefore, while there will be reduced concern at the centre with the day-to-day matters of administration which will fall within the purview of the Assembly, there could well be greater concentration on broad economic and other strategic issues which vitally affect the well-being of Wales.
I turn now to Welsh representation in Parliament. If these broader responsibilities continue to be exercised at the


centre, as they undoubtedly must, it follows that Wales will continue to need strong representation in this House. The Government therefore see no case for a reduction of the present representation as a consequence of their proposals for devolution to Wales.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Why should the people of Wales be entitled to more than their share of representation in this House than the English people?

Mr. Morris: I am not suggesting that they should have more than their share. Great areas of responsibility will remain in the House for broad strategic matters—the sharing of the national cake. Therefore, it will be of the utmost importance to have strong representation in this House from the Principality to safeguard those interests and to take part in general legislation affecting the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope that I have the support of the Opposition Front Bench on that score.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morris: No. I must conclude.

Mr. Cormack: On this point?

Mr. Morris: This is a two-day debate. The hon. Gentleman may yet catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.
In various ways the pattern of government in this country will be undergoing substantial change. We have set ourselves determinedly on this path, and I am sure that in so doing we are following a deep underlying desire in both Wales and Scotland. It is the duty of politicians elected by the people of both Wales and Scotland to be aware of, to reflect, and even to anticipate these wishes of the population. If we fail to do this, we shall be increasingly seen as irrevelant.
We are an innovating and also an accountable Government. We seek to reflect the needs and aspirations of our people. We believe that distance between those who govern and those who are governed—I do not speak of geographical distance—does not help good government. In every sphere of society there is a need to involve people and to bring decision making closer to them. I believe that our proposals will give to the people of Wales the power of decision

on many matters which affect their daily lives.
Novelty, if necessary, stability necessarily, and acceptability are our three aims. I am confident that we shall fulfil them.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The Secretary of State for Wales said that his commitment to bringing government closer to the people of Wales was well known. I think that is right. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been known among many of us for a long time as being committed to greater devolution, and we respect him for it. I think that justifiably he appeared to take great pride in the fact that a Labour Government set up the Welsh Office in 1964. I echo everything that he said about the value of the Welsh Office to Wales and its people. But I think it right to say something about my commitment to what the Secretary of State described as bringing government closer to the people.
Throughout the whole of the time that I have been a Member of this House—it now goes back some years—I have been associated with and actively interested in the promotion of Welsh constitutional development. A great deal has happened during that period.
I was returned to this House in 1951 on a programme which included the appointment of the first Minister for Welsh Affairs with a seat in the Cabinet. Shortly after that we had the appointment of a Minister of State who was wholly committed to Welsh Affairs. We then had the Welsh Grand Committee and other things which, over the years, meant that there was a steady process of administrative devolution in Wales and a steady building of the foundation and fabric which enabled the Welsh Office to be set up by the Labour Government in 1964. The process of decentralisation from Westminster has continued and accelerated. Not least part of that process took place when I was Secretary of State for Wales and continued with the important measures of devolution referred to in the White Paper.
It is in the interests of Wales and of the United Kingdom that this process should continue and that the people of Wales should become still more closely


involved in the process of decision making for the Principality.

Mr. Cormack: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will accept that there is a strong feeling that to proceed towards an Assembly in this way is not the best way of giving the people of Wales an extra voice. Indeed, many of us feel that it would lead to the break up of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is very helpful and has added to my speech. However, if he were to listen as I develop it, he would find that we are not very far apart.
The important point to note is that each of the measures to which I have referred—measures of administrative devolution referred to in the main in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the White Paper—commanded widespread public support in Wales and has proved to be a change for the better. I mention that because no British Government should embark on constitutional change unless they are absolutely clear that they have the—

Mr. Powell: Wholehearted support.

Mr. Thomas: —support of the people affected and that it is a change for the better. This is so true and vital that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been deeply concerned about the course that the Government seem intent on taking in Wales.
The truth about constitutional reform, as was said in the debate yesterday, is that it is irreversible. Any change, other than a gradual or evolutionary change, must inevitably be viewed with anxiety and tested with the greatest caution.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no logical argument for saying that Wales and Scotland must be treated the same. Scotland's situation, with its separate system of law, the preservation of which was provided by the Union Settlement in 1707, and its totally different history and administration, is very different from that of Wales.
I agree that any substantial scheme of devolution raises major problems—this matter was referred to yesterday by the Lord President of the Council—relating

to finance and economic management, trade, industry and employment. All these matters must be looked at in depth.
I also agreed with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) when he said that this is first debate we have had on this subject and it is not detail that we should be discussing. The question is one of principle, and in this debate that is what we should be discussing.
Last night my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist), in a speech which was generally accepted as impressive—incidentally, he was expressing the united view of the Welsh Conservative Parliamentary Party—referred to four main principles which the Secretary of State set out when he helped launch the consultative White Paper last year. At that time the right hon and learned Gentleman explained his Government's commitment to devolution, and I think it is right that these four principles should be referred to again because he did not mention them today.
The first was that the taking of powers from any central body should meet a genuine need. The second was that any proposals should be based on widespread public support. The third was that the changes should be a clear and definite improvement. The fourth was that the changes must be designed to provide a stable constitutional framework for the future. Those are principles which I can not only accept but wholly endorse. However, having heard the Secretary of State today, I am far from convinced that, in the light of those tests, those principles, the proposals envisaged for Wales can be justified.
I leave the case for "genuine need", although the case for it is deplorably weak, and start with the requirement of widespread public support. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North was right last night when he said that there was no evidence whatsoever of a widespread demand in Wales for a directly elected Assembly, legislative or executive. Apart from the three constituencies in which it was felt that support for the Nationalist candidate could defeat the Labour candidate—that is, the Welsh establishment candidate—any candidate of the major parties in Wales will confirm that devolution was hardly an issue in last year's elections. The Kilbrandon Report was almost as remote from the minds


of the ordinary electorate as the Kinsey Report.
The Welsh electors were not seeking more government in Wales. They wanted better government in Britain. The whole of local government, the whole of the National Health Service and the whole of the water services in Wales had just been drastically reformed and reorganised. The citizens of Wales can now vote for new community councils, new large district councils, and new powerful county councils, as well as voting for parliamentary representatives at Westminster.
There is no demand and no enthusiasm for yet another tier of elected government. To most it would be just an added confusion, expense and cumbersome irrelevance. The Kilbrandon Report was correct when it said that
the overwhelming majority … are concerned more with the success of government than where it comes from",
and I refer again to the hon. Member for Bedwellty, because he was right when he said last night that alienation and frustration in our society cannot be cured by proximity to Parliament.
Before the last election we, in the Conservative Party, thought it right to make clear our position on devolution in Wales. In our Welsh Manifesto—

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. He said that there was no demand of any kind in Wales for an Assembly, and he went on to call in aid the report of the Kilbrandon Commission. Paragraph 376 of the report says,
The concern for democracy … in Wales … shows itself in the widespread demand for an elected Welsh assembly, and in the vigorous criticism of appointed ad hoc bodies.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to put the whole case before the House.

Mr. Thomas: I said that there was no widespread demand, and I do not believe there is. I refer to paragraph 449 of Kilbrandon, where it says,
… whereas it seems likely that the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland and Wales are concerned more with the success of government than where it comes from.
I say that that is true. I did not say that there was no demand. I said that there

was no widespread demand, and I gave examples of how it can be assessed.
I think it will have been the experience of right hon. and hon. Members during the last two elections that, apart from in the constituencies which I mentioned, the Assembly for Wales was hardly an issue. I suggest to the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) that he consults his hon. Friends, because I am sure they will agree that in the course of those elections Kilbrandon did not loom large in any area, apart from those in which it was brought up mainly by the Nationalist candidates. The elections in Wales were fought on the ordinary political issue of the time.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the demands were from very few people, but were very loud? In fact, they were loud enough to put the Labour Party into an absolute panic.

Mr. Thomas: I agree that those who wished to champion the case for an elected Assembly did so as loudly as possible, but the general mass of people in Wales are uninterested in this issue. That is the view of most people who went through the constituencies in Wales, as I did, during the last two elections.
I said that before the election we, in the Conservative Party, thought it right to make our position clear. In our Welsh Manifesto we stated firmly that we were against a directly elected Assembly, whether it be executive or legislative. We stated our belief in the essential unity of the United Kingdom, and our belief that the interests of Wales are best served by building on and improving existing and well-tried institutions rather than destroying them. We spelled out the measures which we thought were right at the time. They included, an increase in the functions of the Welsh Office, a block grant for Wales and a strengthened and more democratic Welsh Council.
It is a matter of record that we retained all our seats in Wales at the last election—seats which ranged from Welsh-speaking areas, such as Denbigh, the Conway division of Caernarvon, to seats which are agricultural, such as Pembrokestore, and seats which are residential, commercial and industrial, such as Cardiff and Barry. Not only did we retain our


seats, but in all of them the Plaid Cymru candidate was at the bottom of the poll. I call that in aid to show that the firm attitude taken by our candidates at the last election did not demonstrate a feeling among the electorate that it was important to have an elected Assembly.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has spent some time discussing the question of demand in Wales. Can he say what demand there was for a strengthened Welsh Council?

Mr. Thomas: What we said was that we felt that there should be moves towards gradual devolution in Wales, that people in Wales should have a greater say in the conduct of their own affairs. But we said that it should move in an evolutionary way and that there should be no experimentation, no immediate change. That was one of the things that we felt was right. A strengthened Welsh Council was something which many people had been talking about for a long time. It commended itself to many people on the Welsh Council itself who considered the matter. If the hon. Gentleman will read the report of the Welsh Council, he will see the arguments that are set out there.
The question of constitutional change is an "in" group subject in Wales. It is mainly confined to Welsh TV, radio, some of the Press and certain politically-minded people, and they obviously try to keep this alive. But the mass of the Welsh people are totally uninterested.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about consultations. I was trying to find out from him exactly how many people wrote to him directly. The only information I have had is from the White Paper. I see that he consulted many bodies in a wide variety of fields. They were asked to pronounce on a subject which in most cases was secondary to their main functions. They gave their views either willingly or under some feeling of dutiful compulsion, but a relatively small number of individuals wrote. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not told us how many, but was it not a very small number, and were not most of those committed people who were in favour of legislative devolution?
If one looks at the White Paper, one sees that no consensus emerged except that in nearly all the suggestions made there was a proviso. That proviso was that nothing should be done which would disrupt the essential political and economic unity of the United Kingdom. That is not surprising, for in Wales we know the immense value of that, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred strongly to it today. The overwhelming majority of the people in Wales deeply believe in it because they know full well the benefits it brings. The Welsh Council firmly spells it out in its observations on the Kilbrandon Report.
Our anxiety is that we believe that what is proposed for Wales and what was spelled out in some detail today by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, could well be the beginning of the fragmentation of this unity. The belief that the setting up of an elected Assembly in Wales with certain powers to delegate legislation and with certain executive functions will satisfy or even subdue nationalist demands is a delusion. It will be the biggest stimulus yet created to those whose ultimate goal is independence.
I was interested to hear what was said by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) yesterday in the debate. He said:
My regrets about this are somewhat tempered by the thought that this kind of ineffective arrangement will prove very temporary indeed, because it will precipitate Welsh disillusion with the English political parties, and that will be to the advantage of Plaid Cymru".
He further said:
The weaker the Assembly, the stronger we shall grow; the smaller the concession the more temporary the structure."—[Official Report, 3rd February 1975; Vol. 885, c. 1010.]
I mention that because I believe that the lesson of the past few years is that there is no benefit to be gained by half embracing separatism. All it does is give added vigour and credibility to the full body—the body that one shuns.
No amount of anodyne phrases like those that the right hon. and learned Gentleman used, some of which I took down—for instance, giving reality to the "principle of democratic responsibility"—can persuade my hon. Friends and myself that these proposals can possibly


provide what is required by the principles he has enunciated, a stable constitutional framework for the future. Despite what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said today, they will provide an emasculated Welsh Office, and, I am sorry to say, an emasculated Secretary of State, too. Ultimately they will provide the demise of both.
They will provide an elected body which will demonstrate increasing discontent with the limitations of its powers and functions. That body will increasingly demand more and will be in sustained and increasing conflict with central and local government. As time goes on, Welsh MPs will become more and more politically enfeebled and there will be a marked diminution of Welsh power at Westminster. The demands one has heard already in this debate will increase and there will be a demand for fewer and fewer Members of Parliament from Wales.
I believe that what is proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is too big a step. It is fraught with dangers and difficulties. It affronts each of the principles which were declared by the Secretary of State. I agree with the Welsh Council that the right line is one of gradual evolution and I think that the proposals we put forward last year are about right.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North said last night—that there are many hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches who, if they were free to do so, would wish to follow the sort of course that I have proposed for Wales.
About the only comfort I gained last night from the speech of the Leader of the House was when he said,
I cannot succumb to pressures for speed at the cost of hasty and ill-judged decisions."—[Official Report, 3rd February 1975; Vol. 885, c. 957.]
I would say to him, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the Government that time is not of the essence here. There are daunting problems to consider. If these are considered objectively I am sure that, given time, wisdom will prevail in regard to Wales and the Government will follow our course.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Douglas Crawford: On a point of order. At the beginning of the debate, Mr. Speaker referred to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) took 28 minutes in his speech yesterday and that for that reason other Plaid Cymru Members might have difficulty in catching his eye. Since both Front Bench speakers today have taken 28 or more minutes each, would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, give a similar ruling about Labour and Conservative Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I happened to be here when Mr. Speaker gave his ruling. He also referred to seven interruptions, which the hon. Gentleman left out of his point of order. I do not blame him, but my memory is as long as Mr. Speaker's. There will be an attempt, as there always is, by whoever is in the Chair to see that every point of view is represented.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: I must confess to being one of those Members with deeply held reservations about the wisdom, first of all, of setting up the Commission on the Constitution. I had some further reservations, much more deeply held ones, on reading the Kilbrandon Report and on listening to some of the comments which have since been made on this vitally important subject.
I was also concerned when the Labour Party first embraced the idea of devolution to Scotland and Wales, later to be followed by my own Government, thereby raising some very important questions in my mind and, I am sure, in those of many other Members. We are now finally embarked upon a fundamentally important constitutional change which is clearly of far-reaching importance to the United Kingdom with effects which as yet are obviously unquantifiable.
The debate so far has by no means begun to allay my personal fears. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in opening the debate yesterday, quite properly emphasised the outstanding requirement of the preservation of United Kingdom unity, and the preservation of the sovereign Westminster Parliament. In opening the debate today my right hon.


and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, in common with other hon. Members in the debate, emphasised that there is to be no separatism or federalism as a result of devolution.
We must ask what guarantees there are of the maintenance of this essential unity. The right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) referred to confrontation between the Welsh Assembly and the Westminster Parliament and to the erosion of the powers or authority of parliamentarians at Westminster with the development of that situation. It is inevitable, parliamentarians being what they are and politics being what it is, that these confrontations will arise, perhaps with increasing frequency, once the Assembly is established. Whatever form the Assemblies eventually take—and if some of the ideas canvassed in the debate are accepted, such as raising revenue by taxation, the establishment of a Customs system on the border, the appropriation of oil revenues—

Mr. Crawford: It is our oil.

Mr. Urwin: It is our oil, and I use the term "our" to include everyone. This is nothing to do with the Scottish National Party. The fact that points such as this are made in the debate makes the preservation of the unity which we hold so dear increasingly remote and unlikely.
The proposals in their entirety encompass the first steps towards disunity. The ideas put forward are so incredible as to be inadmissible. The suggestion of devolution of powers of trade, employment, and the procurement and allocation of industry have already emanated from certain hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to the necessity—although these were not his precise words—of the new Assemblies having devolved powers in these areas.
What stands out perfectly clearly is that the English regions will lose out heavily to the Scots and the Welsh who will acquire the right to determine their own future, to make their own decisions, decisions which might be detrimental to their English counterparts. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State

for Wales said clearly that we have had enough of nominated bodies, but that is precisely what the English regions would be left with in those circumstances. They would be left with nominated, non-elected and unrepresentative bodies such as the regional economic planning councils and the water and health authorities.
Opposition from the English regions to such proposals is inevitable, but it would be tragic if regional councils were to develop in England merely in response to the setting up of the new Assemblies in Scotland and Wales.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): My hon. Friend will have noticed last Friday, with the announcement of the devolution of powers to the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, that as a result the English regions will gain. They will now get 100 per cent. of the cost of clearance of derelict areas because the Scottish and Welsh will get 100 per cent. There is a clear gain for the North-East as a result of the first instalment of devolution.

Mr. Urwin: We have always benefited from the policies of central Government on the clearance of derelict land.
There is no tangible evidence of a clamour for regional government in England. Last night my hon. Friend the Minister of State made the welcome statement that no change is envisaged in English local government. That will give relief to many people, especially to the elected councillors. To introduce a third tier would impose very considerable problems. However, some form of devolution could be made to the English regions by restoring to local authorities many of the powers they have lost to the non-representative bodies.
I turn to the devolution of power in industrial procurement, trade and employment. I shall dwell more heavily on comparison with Scotland since the Northern Region has a great deal in common with Scotland. Of course we have a great deal in common with Wales as well, since we are the three major development areas in the United Kingdom. Our problems are of a common nature. We suffer from the decline of heavy basic major industries. We are all involved in


the mad scramble for new industry to broaden the industrial base. There has been healthy competition which has so far been carried out on an equal basis and is subject to central Government policies. There is equality of treatment on incentives and a fairly well-defined policy of industrial location.
If there were to be Scottish and Welsh Assemblies the North would undoubtedly be disadvantaged. There would be no effective machinery except that to which my right hon. Friend has just referred—the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies—for the generation of new employment and economic growth. Yesterday the Scottish nationalists were complaining that Scotland had had a raw deal through the management of the economy. We can all roll up our sleeves and display very deep regional scars.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Does my hon. Friend suggest that the administration of regional policy in the Northern Region, which I once had the privilige of representing along with him, has been so brilliant that it cannot be improved by a measure of regional government?

Mr. Urwin: I do not dispute that there is room for improvement, whether by the introduction of regional government or not. I am not advocating regional government at this stage for obvious reasons. We are top of the unemployment league. I tell those hon. Members who apparently find that funny that this is no laughing matter. For too long we have held this unenviable position. We have had as much of a raw deal as have our Scottish and Welsh colleagues.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: rose—

Mr. Urwin: I will not give way. I am trying to respond as much as possible to the appeal by Mr. Speaker for brief speeches and to resist the temptation to give way to interventions.
We are top of this unemployment league. I make it abundantly clear that we have no intention in the Northern Region of being quiescent on the problem of devolution. The Scots and the Welsh, particularly the Scots, in this House have considerable independent powers already which we in the English regions do not

have. In terms of the presentation of their problems in this House of Commons they are in a decidedly more favourable position than those of us in the other development areas who have the same sort of problems confronting us.

Mr. David Lambie: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Urwin: My hon. Friend will be able to catch the eye of the Chair. I must press on.

Mr. Lambie: I want my hon. Friend to give way because I am not going to catch the eye of the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will let other hon. Members continue, and that those who have been told secrets will keep them to themselves.

Mr. Urwin: Undoubtedly inequality exists in this matter. I fully understand the problems of our Scots, Welsh and Northern Ireland colleagues in presenting their problems and getting the correct answer, because of the heavy pressure on the machinery of government.
The other advantage which our colleagues have over us is the fact that they have Secretaries of State with places in the Cabinet. While we are not suspicious, we feel that in an area like ours we merit the same kind of treatment as our colleagues have. They have special days for Parliamentary Questions and special days for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland debates. They have authoritative Grand Committees which we lack in the Northern Region.
From the industrial revolution onwards, the North has yielded first place to no other region in terms of a major contribution to the national economy. We shall continue to make this contribution with equal success, especially if we are not subjected to impossible handicaps reflected in preferential treatment to our major competitors.
The Northern Region has always had a great affinity with Scotland and the Scottish people. There are many intermarriages between families in the North of England and the Scots. We share common problems. I have long forgiven them for marauding over the border, pillaging, plundering and leaving destruction in their wake. They used to


come down and steal our sheep, our cattle and our women—they had their priorities wrong. They are more educated and more enlightened now. When they come raiding they steal only the women.
I do not advocate the revival of the ancient kingdom of Northumbria. I am proud of my origin. We are all proud of where we are born and the places we represent. But there is no room in the United Kingdom for the kind of fragmentation which we are about to embark upon. We are far too small to indulge in this dubious luxury. Whatever strength we possess—and that is by no means inconsiderable—it should be devoted to fighting off the real challenges which confront the people of this United Kingdom, the economic pressures to which we are all so vulnerable.
My right hon. Friend hinted that there was to be a timetable for legislation. I would have preferred this debate to be regarded as a further step in the consultative procedure, because clearly there is a great division of opinion in the House about the proposals which are being put before us for our consideration. My strong and firm advocacy is to proceed with caution. Let us have another, more objective White Paper setting out what powers are to be devolved to Scotland and to Wales. My right hon. Friends on the Front Bench would be doing a service not only to hon. Members if they pursued this cautious course but to the people of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This has been a weird sort of debate. The television annunciators say that the subject is devolution, but hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have nearly all discovered that it is a debate about the constitution of the United Kingdom. We were supposed to be discussing devolution to Wales and Scotland, but the course of the debate has shown that it is the problem of England which is central to whatever conclusions are going to be reached.
I could hardly not smile when I listened to the introductory speech of the Leader of the House and reflected how gaily the vessel of debate can sail as long

as it is traversing the waters of platitude and vagueness. But as soon as any details come above the horizon, as soon as we are invited to envisage at all definitely what is proposed, then the angry reef of rocks appears upon which so many previous ventures that set out so gaily have been splintered and shipwrecked.
The first reef is representation in this House. It is said that certain parts of the United Kingdom—Scotland and Wales perhaps—shall have Assemblies with executive powers and with legislative powers over a considerable area of the subjects which engage the attention of this House and form the bread and butter of politics. Immediately the question arises, how are those parts of the Kingdom to be represented in this House? There are various alternative answers, but none of them is satisfactory and none of them is tenable. We are immediately confronted with a conundrum, and it is not a new conundrum. It is a very old conundrum. This is a conundrum which was explored in the context of Ireland throughout the greater part of the nineteenth century in this very House. It is old, but no possible solution to it has yet been discovered.
Let us look at the alternatives. Wales and Scotland, so it says in the Government's tentative White Paper, would be still represented as at present—71 Members and 36 Members respectively—in this House. Instantly the inequity becomes visible—and the absurdity—of those hon. Members not merely taking part in debate and vote in this House, but probably often holding the balance and altering the political complexion of the answer and outcome of debate, upon a whole series of subjects where in their own part of the country the responsibility is carried elsewhere.
I leave on one side case 1(a), as it were—that we should impose upon ourselves in this House a self-denying ordinance whereby we do not talk upon subjects which are dealt with in our respective countries and regions by their own local parliaments and governments. I think that Kilbrandon dealt with that one quite adequately, by pointing out the impossibility of definition for that purpose, as well as the damage to a debating and legislative assembly of having self-denying ordinances on a different range of subjects for different sets of hon. Members.
At the other extreme, there is the possibility that those parts of the Kingdom are not represented here at all. But as long as there is a United Kingdom, there must be common subjects and there must be common policies—on defence, foreign affairs and finance; and it is impossible to have taxation without representation or policy without representation.
So a compromise is sought. It is said "Let us cut them down. If they are concerned in this House with only two-thirds of the subjects that we debate, let us give them two-thirds of the Members." There is no logic in that. There is no reason why on subjects which do not concern their own parts of the country at all, subjects for which this House does not legislate in those parts, two-thirds of the members should vote and their vote be decisive, any more than that 100 per cent. of them should vote.
If anyone should say that this is strange doctrine to come from a Member representing a constituency in Northern Ireland, I reply very promptly that Northern Ireland is the exception that proves the rule. For Stormont—the Stormont constitution 1920–72—was the cut-off, burnt-down rump of an unworkable solution for home rule in Ireland. It survived and was tolerated by this House only because it was so small that it just managed to be treated as an exception. After all, in most Parliaments it meant only a net addition of seven, eight or nine votes to the Government or Opposition side. So, rather than stir up what was then quiescent, the House let it be. But not 100 seats! Not an element of this House which could change the outcome of every debate, which could result in a different Government from that which would otherwise be seated on the Treasury Bench! Not at all!
Faced with the insolubility of this conundrum, anyone revolving the questions finds himself led to the conclusion that it must be "fair do's" all round. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), in what those who heard it will have regarded as one of the most important speeches in this debate, showed clearly that we are led to the conclusion that the various parts of the Kingdom must be treated alike if we are to maintain the Parliament, and the Parliament of the Union.
That is all right, as long as one leaves it there. As an abstract proposition, it is tenable. But does that mean an Assembly for England, a legislative Assembly, an English Parliament?

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: This is an English Parliament. Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Powell: There is a convention in this debate, which we are all anxious to follow, that we are as brief as possible. That involves not being led away from the main theme, so I apologise to the hon. Lady for not replying to her intervention. However, I think that I shall satisfy her.
The point is simply that if we have a corresponding institution for this part of the realm, it will be quite disproportionate to the rest of this imaginary federation. Indeed, it would be a competitor with this House. It would be almost five-sixths of an image of this Chamber. Here I am taking the hon. Lady's point.
Therefore people begin to say "Then we must break up England. We must discover ancient kingdoms, regions, sub-divisions of England, and give them a set of assemblies which will appear to be of the same nature as those envisaged for Wales and Scotland." But we all know that that is nonsense. There is nothing in the regional nature of England—here I am entirely with the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin)—which would properly be represented by semi-self-governing legislative assemblies.
But that is not the whole of the difficulty. Even if we are prepared—which I do not believe we are—to envisage breaking up the United Kingdom into a federal State, with the component States enjoying roughly similar powers and constitutions—which we have seen to be the necessary condition of retaining this House, of retaining the union at all—we find that thereby we have still destroyed the House itself and the union.
There is no analogy between the federal States of the world and this United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), in his speech yesterday, drew attention to a fact about the union of the United Kingdom—the fact that it is a parliamentary union. It is our common representation in this House, and our common readiness, so


long as that exists, to accept the will of this House as overriding and binding, which is the heart and essence of the union and of all its parts. Wales, Scotland, Ireland in 1800, whatever has been of the union, has belonged to it by way of parlamentary union. We cannot think of Britain, of this United Kingdom, apart from this Parliament.
But the Parliament of this United Kingdom bears no resemblance to a federal Assembly dealing with certain residual or supreme subjects, with foreign affairs, with defence, with the major allocation of block grants to the various States of the United Kingdom. The nature of the House of Commons is that its sovereignty reaches into every nook and cranny of the national life, that there is no compartment of the national life from which its searching view is withheld. There are no powers which it will concede within this realm to any other authority. This House is a jealous House, and that is of its nature.

Mr. Crawford: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, then, that if the majority of the people of Scotland and Wales voted for self-government this House has the power to gainsay them?

Mr. Powell: I have always said that if it be the preponderant and settled wish of the inhabitants of any part of this Kingdom no longer to remain part of this Kingdom, that preponderant and settled will should not and could not be resisted. I have long been on the record as saying that. The experience of our forefathers in Ireland is as drastic an object lesson as we could require.
I return to the central point about the House. It is not just any House of Commons, any United Kingdom Parliament, dealing with certain limited subjects, which is of the nature and bond of the union of the United Kingdom. It is the House of Commons of Pym and Pitt, of Burke and Gladstone. It is the House of Commons which brooks no competition and no concurrent authority in any part of the realm.
That House of Commons today, as we were accidentally reminded by a sort of echo in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South

(Mr. Thomas), is threatened from outside. It is fighting for its existence externally. If we embark further upon the incautious, hastily cobbled and unanalysed course of action that the Government have embarked upon, the existence of this House—with all that it means to our country and our people—will be in danger from within as well as from without. I cannot believe that the House will tolerate that course when it addresses its mind to what is implicit in it.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ifor Davies: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) began by reminding the House that it was expected that the debate would be about devolution in Scotland and Wales. As he said, the debate has developed into a discussion about England. I would go further and say that the debate has developed into a discussion about the unity of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman's speech reiterated what has been said a number of times by many right hon. and hon. Members—namely, that devolution is not only a difficult but a complex matter. The right hon. Gentleman spent most of his speech in pointing out how complex an issue it is in relation to the British constitution.
I am convinced that the great majority of Welsh people believe that there is no complexity and no doubt whatsoever on the central issue, and that is, of retaining the unity of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friends have always stressed—they did so long before the Nationalists arrived—that Wales is a proud nation with its own tradition and its own unique cultural values. No one stressed that more than the first Secretary of State for Wales, James Griffiths. Every Secretary of State since has done so, as did my right hon. Friend in opening today.
At the same time, the indivisibility of the United Kingdom has been realised all along. Despite the criticism, Wales has greatly benefited by it. Time will not allow me to go into great detail, having regard to the appeal of Mr. Speaker for brevity. I need only mention, for example, how Wales has benefited from the policy of the dispersal of Government offices and industry to our development districts and regional areas. For example, the Royal Mint moved to Llantrisant, the


Census Office moved to Newport and the Vehicle Taxation Office moved to Swansea. In addition, many major firms have been attracted to Wales as a result of regional policies. Does anyone in this House believe that that would have been possible without a unified United Kingdom policy?
The proof is that the unity of Wales with Britain has proved a strength and not a weakness in tackling our problems. The fact is that stripped of its superficial outer shell the policy of nationalism boils down to plain separatism across the industrial and economic front. The plea for a legislative assembly is the thin end of the wedge. There are those who advocate that instant devolution is a panacea that will resolve all our problems. Nothing is further from the truth. I get a little tired of the parrot-like cry of those who contend that Welshmen have no say in our affairs and the sheer exaggeration which we have heard again in this debate that we are downtrodden and enslaved to the English. What utter nonsense this is.
As for independence and paying our way, the argument was destroyed by Kilbrandon when it was shown in paragraph 459 of the Kilbrandon Report that as a result of the Welsh budget produced in 1971 there was revealed a deficit of £182 million or 22 per cent. of Welsh expenditure. It is also high time that we nailed the charge of remoteness that is levelled against hon. Members of this House. Our weekly interviews are ample proof of that.
Great pressure is placed upon my right hon. and learned Friend to proceed at full speed with measures of devolution. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) began by revealing his commitment to devolution. He emphasised the importance of the question of principle that we should be discussing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) mentioned not only the principle but the timing. In my view, timing is the all-important issue. The pressure does not come from the great majority of Welshmen, and I am convinced that there is no desire for speedy action. On the contrary, the feeling is that the Government should concern themselves, as a matter of first priority—especially after today's announcement—with the problems of unemployment and Indus-

trial reorganisation. Moreover, it would be foolish and irresponsible to impose another new system before the reorganisation of local government has at least been allowed to settle down.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to give in to the demand for a quick and strict timetable. I urge them to make haste slowly. The great majority of Welsh people believe that the essential need is for an evolutionary approach. The experience of the Welsh Office has demonstrated the advantage of limited devolution in the first place, with improvement as experience is gained. I remind the House that the machinery for accountability and democratic control already exists in this Parliament. There is room for further improvement by taking advantage of the means already available and perfecting their use.
The Welsh Grand Committee has the potential for a more effective service. New techniques could be worked out to allow Welsh Estimates, orders and regulations exclusive to Wales to be brought before the Committee. On the other hand, I accept that there is a case for some measure of executive devolution arising from the greater consciousness that economic and administrative efficiencies are insufficient in themselves to create a satisfactory society. Democracy, after all, is about discussion as well as the efficient use of resources. It is about accountability and understanding, as well as economic progress. There is of course a need for examination in far greater depth into Welsh affairs, which time does not permit in this House. Some important functions were outlined to us by the Secretary of State today and I would accept that some meaningful and important functions are possible for an Executive Assembly.
I would see merit, for example, in a Bill significantly affecting Wales being discussed on First Reading. At present, First Reading is purely formal. I put forward the suggestion that in a First Reading debate the Welsh Assembly could indicate how Welsh interests could be affected, so that the Government and hon. Members could be alerted, at an early stage, about the Assembly's views.
There is a case also for the extension of democratic control over the numerous nominated and statutory bodies operating


in Wales. It is no great secret that there is grave dissatisfaction with the appointed or nominated bodies which increasingly perform duties of great importance to Wales. No proposals for devolution in any respect can be realistic without reference to the financial implications. In this respect I commend to the House the warning that is contained in paragraph 574 of the Kilbrandon Report, which reads:
If a particular scheme of devolution gave so much financial weight to the regions that they were in a position to challenge the authority of Parliament, the scheme would go too far along the road towards regional autonomy. The regional assemblies, particularly those controlled by authorities not in power in Westminster, would be tempted to exert their financial powers to the full. In practice such a scheme could undermine the sovereignty of Parliament and lead to disunity.
I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate the significance of those words.
The supporters of a sovereign Welsh State base their policies not on Wales's present problems but on an emotional decision adopted many decades ago. We are living in a new age, and the message that must come out of this debate, loud and clear, is that the interdependence of nations is such that no peoples can live to themselves, and no nation can separate its national life from the rest of the world.

6.11 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I agree with much that was said by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Davies). It is right for us to take this opportunity to express our views on the principle which lies behind the debate. The debate has done much to make clear the overriding importance of placing the problem of devolution in a United Kingdom context. That is important because it is not just the next step in a devolutionary process that in Scotland has been going on for many years, but a step which, if wrongly directed, can lead to the dissolution of the United Kingdom.
I have been consistently against devolution, not because I do not want to see a greater sense of power being given to Scotland or to Wales but because I cannot see a way in which that can be done without separation following. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hen-

don, South (Mr. Thomas) issued a warning that points more clearly than I can to the dangers of half measures in any form, and separation, perhaps within a decade, means the break-up of the United Kingdom. It is clear from the debate that, at last, many people are beginning to think what it means. It has been set out most clearly for us all by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Many voices from both sides of the House have expressed fear and determination that the break-up of the United Kingdom shall not happen.
When one considers the Scottish position, one sees within Scotland five Scottish Departments of Government based on St. Andrew's House. With devolution, presumably legislative responsibility would be given to an Assembly, which would assume the wide functions now within the Scottish Office. They were referred to in detail yesterday. Here, I wholeheartedly support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South in his advice that there should not be a Scottish—or indeed a Welsh—Civil Service. Civil servants are well known for their integrity and competence. They are also well known for their fierce departmental loyalty. Such loyalty in action between a Scottish and an English Civil Service could offer only another area of dangerous conflict, leading to further constitutional difficulty.
Whatever may be done, it has to be paid for, so the consideration which is perhaps more important than any other when one is examining ways and means is that it has to be paid for either by a block grant or by giving power to raise as well as to spend money.
Yesterday the Lord President said that he was in favour of a block grant. If we are determined—as I believe we are; it has become clear in the debate—to retain the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, that seems to be the right, indeed, the only, course, but it brings at once into the open the foundation of conflict—"That is not enough; we need more; that is not our share". It is easy to imagine the conflicts to which that would give rise. In the end, if I understood the Lord President aright, it would come back to the sovereign Parliament in Westminster, and the 72 or 71 Scottish


Members, perhaps having swayed the Government of the day and changed the minds of those who sit on the Treasury Bench, would then join their English colleagues in deciding what should or should not be done. Let no Minister make any mistake; I should campaign as avidly as would any Scottish Nationalist in circumstances of decision given under these auspices.
I shall leave aside the question of oil, although it is highly relevant, because it has been set up as the provider of a bottomless purse, but the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) put it in proper perspective yesterday in his admirable speech.
So we have the sovereign Parliament at Westminster making the most important decisions on a block grant. That assumes an agreed partnership, as the Secretary of State for Wales made clear today. I see no hope of that partnership of nations within the United Kingdom, and we were given no encouragement to hold that hope by the response of some of our colleagues yesterday. I see a block grant as a possibility, but I also see that that system could provide the cause for the immediate disintegration of the United Kingdom.
Apart from the question of what resources are available in Scotland—I have already made clear the position, as I see it, of oil—where would that lead? The Minister of State rightly expressed concern yesterday over our great universities. How would they stand? What about our Lords of Appeal in another place? No reference has been made to them. What about our broadcasting? I happen to have come across figures today which must be well known to other hon. Members. The joint revenue from STV and Grampian is approximately £9 million. The annual cost of just one service is approximately £25½ million. That is a fairly wide discrepancy, which would be repeated in many other fields.
What about defence? We have not had a clear explanation, from those who advocate separatism, of what will be the position on defence. Those who advocate a separate Scotland also advocate the abolition of our alliances and some advocate the abolition of all defence.
Let us see whether the position is any easier in the realm of trade and industry. The difficulties here are even greater, and

I do not see how it is possible to retain responsibility for them at Westminster. I was amused to hear the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) cheerfully say that there could be a Customs barrier. In my constituency the car industry finds a home market of 50 million too small. How will it fare with a home market of 5 million? What of the four trains a day to Linwood, from England, bringing car components for the assembly line? Will the car industry become English and withdraw to the Midlands? How can there be separation of company taxation? These arguments apply equally well to other industries on which Scotland depends.
Meanwhile, our small nation is already over-governed. The weight of local government reform and its cost have not yet been fully realised. The possibility of a full Cabinet system as opposed to the committee system has been suggested. That seems to me madness, in cost, in weight of bureaucracy and in the United Kingdom position in which we shall find ourselves.
Even more impossible is the position of the Secretary of State. I have considerable respect for the right hon Gentleman who holds the office now, but if he reads again paragraph 23(d) of Cmnd. 5732 he will find within it the best recipe for an early coronary that I have ever read. The question of principle to which I come back is that which is before us first and foremost today.
I run second to none in my pride in my native land, where, for centuries, and in the same parish, my family have lived. However, I see for our small, proud country of 5 million people a solemn plan that we shall carry the heaviest bureaucratic structure yet envisaged. Why? Because we have allowed our hearts to rule our heads. We have failed to stand up and say, as I say now, "Self-government you can have, but at a price, and that price includes, above all, the disintegration of the United Kingdom to which we Scots are proud to belong".

6.22 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: Many of the arguments should logically lead those opposed to devolution to argue for the complete integration of all the nations of the United Kingdom and the


elimination of the concepts of the nationhood of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is the ultimate, logical position of many—I do not say all—who have argued against devolution.
I am intrigued by the different attitude that we bring to bear on the subject of devolving power from Westminster internally as opposed to transferring sovereignty from Westminster to Brussels. I would argue that neither is an easy task, but the question of the Common Market presents a much stiffer test than does that of devolving power within the United Kingdom. There are Members in this Chamber who will recall that when questions were raised about the details, the consequences and the implications of entry to the Common Market—what was meant by possible political and economic union, not only for sovereignty but for the electoral system and the constitutional position of the country—they were frequently met by the words, "All that will be solved in the fullness of time".
If there we raised any possibility of confrontation between the British, French, Germans and Italians, we were told that decisions would be taken bearing in mind that if any were against the basic interest of any member of the Community the Community would not survive. The implication was that such decisions would not be taken.
However, when we come to the possibility of devolving power within a group of people who have been together for almost 270 years, suddenly all the obstacles become so great that we cannot mentally overcome them. I am struck by this remarkable difference.
Let me make it clear that I do not want to see a break-up of the United Kingdom or a divorcing of the close co-operation and good relations between the various peoples who make up the country known as the United Kingdom. I certainly do not want to see the trade union movement divided into its national components, so that there is a Scottish TUC which has only a fraternal relationship and not an integral relationship with the British TUC.
What I find remarkable is that those who argue in favour of the Union are quite certain that it is a fragile flower—that put under too much pressure the

petals will fly off in different directions. Is it really the case that after nearly 270 years of all these peoples being together—with the social intercourse, the financial and political mix, giving one another a great deal of strength and benefit and learning from one another—the Union is so fragile it will break up almost overnight? Where is this belief in the solidity of the Union in the minds of those who are afraid to loosen the Westminster reins a little in case the Scottish horse bolts from the stable?

Mr. James Dempsey: I am impressed by my hon. Friend's arguments on this claptrap about the transfer of sovereignty. On Sunday I attended a conference of trade unionists and learned about the deplorable rate of redundancies in Lanarkshire which were decided in America. There is no argument about the transfer of sovereignty or the right to decide whether the people should be employed or unemployed in that situation.

Mr. Sillars: The multinationals will be dealt with not in a European context but on an international basis, by international co-operation on behalf of the international working class. My hon. Friend is talking about a workers' democracy and participation as well as devolution. To return to devolution, we are engaged in an adjustment of the relationships between a majority people and a minority people—between the Scots and the English on the one hand, and the Welsh and the English on the other. I make no comment on the Northern Ireland situation at the moment.

Mr. Norman Buchan: This is Socialist theoretical heresy. Is it the suggestion that we shall deal only with the multinational companies when the working class of each country has assimilated itself into one kind of international working-class body, capable of dealing with the multinational companies? I am sure that Karl Marx would never have thought of that.

Mr. Sillars: It may surprise my hon. Friend, but I never thought that Karl Marx was an absolute authority on everything. I approach all "isms" with scepticism. I believe that Karl Marx was a remarkable man. I am not saying that we must wait until the day arrives when all the workers spontaneously gather together in an international trade union


movement before we finally deal with the multinationals.
There are ways and means whereby national government can cut down the sovereignty of multinationals. However, I argue that even that will not be capable of overcoming all the problems until we link hands with our fellow workers in other countries and are able to take action in the United Kingdom in defence of workers in Spain, or workers in Yugoslavia can take action in defence of workers in the United States of America. No doubt my hon. Friends and I will conduct this type of seminar on the theory of Socialism, and my heretical views of Socialism, at some other stage—perhaps at the Labour Party Conference.
I want to refer now to the question of anomalies. It would be quite wrong if we tried to draw up a watertight system that could be uniformly applied to the whole country. There are all sorts of anomalies inside the Union at the present time. Indeed, the greatest anomaly is that for all the passionate arguments about the integrity of the United Kingdom, this Parliament has freely conceded the right of a part of the United Kingdom to secede from the Union by plebiscite—Ulster has that right at periodic times throughout the next 10 or 20 years. People may disagree or agree with that, but it is a fact. Many who argue about the integrity of the United Kingdom voted for that policy. I remind hon. Members that the United Kingdom used to be bigger than it is now. There were the 26 counties, which made up part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) made a powerful speech last night. He ended up by saying that one of his great fears was that Scotland would end up as the North European Albania. He may be reading too much Karl Marx as well. He seemed to be haunted by the fear of us becoming a very lonely, isolated people. I think he does less than justice to the Scottish nation when he says that. There is no possibility of our ceasing to visit our relatives in Manchester, in Corby New Town, in Canada, Australia or New Zealand, provided we can afford it. There is no possibility of our stopping selling our whisky or drinking our whisky, talking to

the world or listening to it. There is no possibility of our not participating.
It is perfectly possible to be intensely patriotic, in the full Scottish sense of the word, and yet to be internationalist at the same time. If my hon. Friend reads the history of a man called John Boyd Orr he will see that he is an outstanding example of a patriot and an internationalist. Since the Union was born in 1707 there has been a profound desire on the part of the people of Scotland to have their own Parliament returned in some form or other. This can be proved by a reading of Hansard. Scottish Home Rule is no new subject. It is just that events since 1967 have lent a more telling urgency, so that this House has long passed the stage when it can deliberate at leisure. It is now coming quickly to the time when decisions are called for.
My hope is that the Scots and English are sufficiently mature and broad-minded to resolve the problems with give and take on both sides, and that the bonds of affection and respect which are real 'twixt one nation and the other will be strengthened, not damaged, by the decisions that we take in the coming year. In my view this is a question of the majority bending to accommodate a minority. That minority, in turn, has to accept certain limitations on its freedom of action.
A number of my hon. Friends from English and Welsh constituencies may wonder how it is that we have come to this stage. From its birth the Labour Party supported Home Rule. Its views on the merits of a Scottish Parliament did not abate until after the 1945 election. The Home Rule commitment was retained until around the mid-1950s, when it was finally dropped. The paradox is that, far from becoming less Scottish in its attitude, the Scottish element of the Labour Party became the first of the successful, modern, distinctly national parties in the United Kingdom.
That was no cynical move. Labour played its rôle in Scotland quite unconsciously, and its attitudes were a genuine expression of its views and aspirations for the Scottish people. Let me quote from what I regard as an important policy statement, "Signposts for Scotland". This was the policy document


upon which we fought and won the 1964 election. In that we said:
In Scotland bridges, piers and ferries are in many cases extensions of the highway and should be treated as such. It is unjust that, while millions of pounds are spent on motorways and trunk roads in the South to which the public has free access, tolls are still being imposed on essential bridges and ferries in Scotland, many of which are in any case completely inadequate for the traffic they carry. The Government's projected imposition of tolls"—
that was a reference to the then Tory Government—
to finance the building of the Forth road bridge, to be followed by the Tay and Erskine bridges, is indefensible
That was the Labour Party in 1964. From that quotation—from the spirit of the message—one sees the whole attitude betrayed by its assertion of Scottish needs as being different from those of England. One gets a clearer understanding of why, when Harold Macmillan was sweeping to his victory in 1959, north of the border the Labour Party was reversing the trend and gaining seats.
Between 1955 and 1964 the Labour Party in Scotland stoked the expectations of the Scottish people. It did that through its Scottish policy. We all know the history of 1964 to 1970. This trail of events, plus a rising Scottish demand for self-government, which would have occurred anyway, has led us to the present day and has led the Labour Party to a firm commitment to set up a Scottish Assembly.
I turn now to the issue of what powers the Assembly is to have. It is essential for this body to have control of the present Scottish Office functions, plus economic authority. I would certainly consider, in addition, internal transport, coastal shipping, energy, ports, the attraction and location of industry, land use, agriculture, forestry and fishing, shipbuilding, tourism, the Scottish Development Agency and the right to take initiatives on industrial relations, with a statutory obligation to consult the United Kingdom Government. I would also like to see an Assembly have certain limited revenue-raising powers.
Were such powers to be allocated we would have a powerful instrument of meaningful self-government placed back in the hands of the Scottish people. I

believe that a Parliament with these powers would satisfy their needs and aspirations and make this Union stronger, always provided that we do not, as a British electorate and a British Parliament, continue with the policy of remaining in membership of the Common Market. [Interruption.] In a sense all of our discussion until now has been like The Guardian study, which was published on 16th January. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) keeps saying "Oh." He should read the speeches I made during the passage of the European Community Bill in 1972. He will find that I am saying now what I said then.
What The Guardian and others have missed is the fact that we have talked against a background of a Britain which might be no more. We have talked against a background of a self-governing, independent Britain, when in reality the Common Market poses a great question-mark about the continuation of that situation. My fear is that by the time the Government present their Bill, events on the EEC front will have overtaken them. Like The Guardian, many people have failed to realise the importance of the Common Market in relation to the internal Government of Britain.
I conclude by remarking that if we are locked inside the EEC I would not argue that Scotland should come out. That is, perhaps, some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. I believe that we should retain our close links with the other people inside the British Isles, but I would certainly argue that it would then be in the interests of the Scottish people to have direct nation-State membership of the Community. If we were foolish enough to continue inside the EEC it might be time to write a new verse to an old "sang".

6.38 p.m.

Mr. George Reid: If this debate has achieved anything it has furthered the demand for self-government for the people of Scotland and Wales. Those who read this debate will not be slow to note how ill-informed many hon. Members have been about what is happening in those two countries. What is happening in Scotland is not confined to the rise


of the Scottish National Party. What we are witnessing is the rebirth and regeneration of the nation of Scotland. That is why there is a corresponding demand for meaningful institutions to be established in Edinburgh.
Those reading the debate will have noted too, the divisions among Government and Opposition on the subject of devolution, with some hon. Members saying that we should go forward with speed and others saying that we should pull back. There is a clear message to the Government from Scotland. It is that the Government cannot possibly hope to go on saving both their faces on this subject for very much longer.
I listened with interest to the speech of the Lord President yesterday and to that of the Secretary of State for Wales today. There was the opportunity then for a clear enunciation of what the Government have decided on this subject of devolution. Instead there was nothing. I am reminded of what the White Queen said to Alice in "Through the Looking-Glass":
The rule is, jam tomorrow and jam yesterday—but never jam today.
Many people in Scotland had expected some detailed announcement of what the Government are up to at this stage. I read with interest an authorised and authoritative interview in the Scotsman given by the Under-Secretary with responsibility for devolution a few weeks ago. He said:
The timescale is bang on target. Indeed we may be exceeding the timescale.
If the timescale is "bang on" does that mean that nothing has been decided? If it has been exceeded does that refer to the small crumb which emerged during the debate namely, that the Assemblies—big surprise—are to be in Edinburgh and Cardiff?
We shall want to know more about the position of the Assembly, how many members it will have, what boundary system will be adopted, whether there will be two members or one member per constituency? Where in Edinburgh is it to be? What investigations have been made into the suitability of the Royal High School and Donaldson's Hospital and other properties? What office accommodation, library accommodation, research accommodation is available?
We should have some clear indication of what form of government there is to be in the Assembly. Scotland will have no truck with the committee system. The dignity of Scotland demands a Scottish Prime Minister and a Scottish Cabinet. There should also be some answer to the more detailed questions of revenue—raising powers, control of trade, industry, energy and employment. I accept that these cannot be given completely during the debate. They are for the White Paper. But at least we would appreciate some clarification of the guidelines on which the Government are working. As a declaration of good intent, perhaps the Secretary of State will say clearly that in due time the Scottish Development Agency will be responsible to the Scottish Assembly. Then we shall know that in Scotland we shall have an Assembly with real meaning and with real teeth which is capable of solving our enormous social and economic problems by taking advantage of the opportunities that will face Scotland in the years ahead.
The aim of my party is clear. It is the restoration of national sovereignty to the people of Scotland and, ultimately, the withdrawal of all Scottish Members from this House. It seeks an end to the separatism which has been imposed on the people of Scotland by successive London Governments—an end to the separation from our kith and kin in the Commonwealth, separation internationally, and separation in education and in trade.
Our method is through democratic action via the ballot box. I say this as a member of the fastest-growing party in Europe. With 30 per cent. of the Scottish vote at the last election behind us, we can take some credit for this debate on devolution. We shall continue the process through the Assembly. Of course we shall sit in the Assembly. We shall make it work and abide by the ground rules.
Devolution is not a once-for-all, immutable transfer of powers, but a continuing and ongoing process. Where it stops will be decided not by this House but by the people of Scotland. We want an Assembly that is a workshop not a talking shop—a place where hard work and endeavour can bring genuine Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. We want to eradicate the poorer housing, lower wages, greater poverty, worse health and appalling


emigration which has been our lot under successive Westminster Governments.
There is a model before us in the various Government of Scotland Bills which have been introduced since the 1880s. I have only to refer to the work of Tom Johnston, George Buchanan, Jimmy Maxton, James Barr, Campbell Stephen and others. Their reason for introducing legislation was the same as ours—namely, to bring social justice and equality to the people of Scotland.
Barr's Bill of 1927 stated:
the power of levying and collecting all taxes, including income tax, in Scotland shall be transferred to the Scots Parliament and the taxes so levied and collected shall be paid into a Scottish Treasury.
It makes sense to have a Scottish Treasury and a Scottish Consolidated Fund, with due provision through a joint council for a Scottish block grant to pay for shared services on a United Kingdom basis. I hope that hon. Members on the Labour benches will not betray these traditions. James Maxton said: "I am convinced that we can achieve more in five years in a self-governing Scotland than in 25 or 30 years of heartbreaking struggle in a British House of Commons". I agree with that.
Root and branch change such as I have suggested has practical advantages. It avoid the conflicts and frustrations inherent in a constitutional system based on a de facto division of authority between a subordinate assembly and government on the one hand and a nominally sovereign parliament and government on the other. It also poses far less difficult problems in draftsmanship, and subsequently even more delicate problems of interpretation. Furthermore, it provides through a joint council for formal machinery for consultation and co-operation in economic social and fiscal matters.
The only people with any clarity of purpose and vision in this debate are my colleagues in the SNP and our hon. Friends in Plaid Cymru. Ever since Hamilton successive Governments, no matter what their hue, have approached the problems of Scotland and Wales in a cynical, dilatory and enforced manner. Long periods of inactivity have been followed, for blatantly electoral reasons, by seductive propaganda.
The Government's White Paper "Devolution and Democracy" was produced on the very eve of the General Election—a piece of sticking plaster produced at the end of the day to paste over the deep divisions in the Labour Party. It is obvious that these divisions are now beginning to show. Opposite me I see hard-line Unionists and devolutionists, centralisers and decentralisers, sporran socialists, supporters of a Scots workers' republic, and a great silent majority who hope that the problem will somehow, sometime go away. But I say to them that the problem will not go away. The divisions are equalled in the ranks of the Scottish Tories—

Mr. Sillars: Would the hon. Gentleman support a workers' republic in Scotland?

Mr. Reid: No. I would not support a workers' republic. I support a social democratic state in Scotland, but I shall come to that point subsequently in my remarks.
I was saying that these divisions are equalled only in the ranks of Scotland's third party, the Tory rump. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) is a recent convert to federalism. The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, recently announced that the Assembly should have a legislative function in relation to Scottish Bills. He also said that Assembly Bills should be referred back to Westminster for Report and Third Reading. Much as I respect the noble Lord, I believe that most Scots will find his suggestions totally unacceptable and out of touch with the times. I call on leaders of the Tory and Labour Parties to come clean.
I refer to an authoritative and authorised interview given by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in the Scottish Press. The interview appears at the same time when headlines in the Scotsman and in Glasgow Herald read as follows:
Devolution fiasco at Chequers … Cabinet allies for slow down … Support for letter from Scottish Labour Executive … Secret battle on devolution plans.
It is not for me to speculate about internal wrangles in the Labour Party but I want to know what is going on here in


the House of Commons and not learn it from the Scottish Press.
We were told by the Under-Secretary of State in that interview that his plans are "bang on target". What does that mean? He went on to say that the debate now was "whether to go beyond the original commitments." Again what does that mean? The Minister said in that interview:
When it comes to finance, the person responsible for finances would negotiate direct with the Exchequer.
I should like to know how he would conduct those negotiations. He went on to say that his own view—and in these days of diminished collective responsibility what is a Minister's "own view"?—
… the Assembly should have marginal taxing powers to raise within Scotland 10 per cent. more of its revenue.'
What does that mean?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I dislike intervening in an hon. Member's speech, but I must warn the hon. Gentleman that he is prejudicing the chance of one of his hon. Friend's to catch my eye a little later.

Mr. Reid: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker.
Let me turn to the European connection, which is the biggest dimension to Scottish politics this year. Events are moving faster than the Government, and I am aware that their carefully constructed timetable may well go awry.
English politicians have just re-discovered the issue of sovereignty. Perhaps in so doing they understand the SNP case a little better. Every complaint they make about British decisions being overruled in Brussels and about the bureaucracy there parallels our complaint about Scottish decisions being taken here. In the event of an English vote taking Scotland into the EEC, there will be tremendous pressure for Scotland to strike out on its own. That will mean leaving this House. It is inconceivable for the Scottish people to accept less than the people of Luxembourg or of the Irish Republic.
Lastly, I should like to speak briefly about the subject of finance. The power of the purse is the key area. The main criticism of the White Paper is that it does nothing to change the present economic set-up. Jobs, incomes, prosperity—these are the vital areas and, unless the Assem-

bly has economic control, it is doomed to failure from the start. We need full power over the way in which our money is raised and spent.
Hon. Members will remember the cry of the American colonists—"No taxation without representation". The obverse is equally true. No assembly can claim to represent a country in which is does not raise and spend the tax revenue, and if the Assembly does not have this power it contains the seed of its own decay. A block grant system of finance is totally unacceptable. It is mere pocket money from Westminster, and reduces the Assembly to the status of a glorified county council.
The people of Scotland have a clear choice. Lord Chancellor Seafield said, on 25th March 1707, at the last meeting of the Scottish Parliament, "There's an end of an auld sang." In these days there are new tunes in the making and new settings for the old song. Hon. Members will agree that there is nothing better for an old Scots song than that it be sung over again. Barr said in 1927:
We propose that it should be sung over again in richer, fuller and clearer notes, to call the people to new hope and a higher and nobler endeavour.

Mr. Speaker: I intend to call the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and then we shall come back to Wales and possibly to England.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Mr. Speaker, I get clearly the inference that we should keep our speeches brief, so I shall refrain from answering in detail the speech of the hon. Gentleman who went before, although I would tell him in passing that it was a bit much to hear the Dick Taverne of Clackmannan quoting James Maxton, Lord Kirkwood and John Paton in support of a social democratic Scotland—a proposition to which I am sure none would have put their names.
I emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who compellingly took apart the argument that we could continue with 107 Members of Parliament in this House if we had Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. I entirely agree. I do not believe that this House would tolerate that situation. From another viewpoint I am equally confident


that it would not be possible to find 107 men of calibre and principle prepared to come here and vote time and again on issues in which they have no interest, no mandate and no affected constituent.
There is another area in which we have not yet faced the consequences of what we are discussing. It concerns the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, who spoke only yesterday, gave a firm commitment that the Secretary of State would be kept in the Cabinet. I do not see how we can reconcile that with what is proposed. Nor, again, do I see how we can find a man of calibre and principle prepared to sit in the Cabinet with no Department, no Budget and no power, who will be answerable to this House for what is done in Scotland by a Scottish Assembly but blamed in Edinburgh for what is done down here.
I acquit the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) of not having looked at these consequences. I believe he has looked them full in the face and is prepared to face them, although he gives them less emphasis than he might.
I am certainly one of those who, a year ago, when we first discussed the matter, was very doubtful and said that this could well be a slippery slope which could only end in full independence. I would tell the hon. Gentleman that those who felt that are anything but reassured by the way the debate has gone since. Only 10 months ago we were debating whether we should have the Kilbrandon A scheme or one of the less devolved schemes. Now, only 10 months later, the Kilbrandon scheme is so much a part of the ministerial consensus that the only question is how much further we shall go from here.
It is timely to remember that considerations were put forward by Kilbrandon against devolving the functions in trade, industry and employment, and my hon. Friend quite rightly—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to raise this point, but the television annunciator has only just this second changed to indicate that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) has finished speaking. I am begin-

ning to wonder whether the record is sometimes inaccurate.

Mr. Speaker: I keep my own record of the timing.

Mr. Cook: I am sure the House will have observed that I am not speaking on behalf of the Scottish National Party. If I may take only one remark put forward by Kilbrandon against devolution in these fields, if we have an Assembly in Edinburgh, which has the sole right for industrial promotion and industrial and regional development in Scotland, it will become impossible, and we must face the fact, for Scotland to claim to have a say, through positive and negative controls, on industrial growth and development in England.
We in the Labour Party have always said firmly that one cannot have balanced regional progress unless there are positive and negative controls. The Lord President of the Council did not address himself to these points yesterday, or refute the argument in Kilbrandon. He referred only to a general belief that the control of trade, industry and employment is very dear to the hearts of the Scottish people. I accept that that is probably true as a general proposition. I accept that many Scots would like to have control of their own industry and their own place of employment but, with respect, that is not what my hon. Friend is proposing to give them. It is proposed to give them another vote, every four or five years, for another Parliament in which these powers will rest. I admit that in this ballot only 2 million will vote, as opposed to 20 million, but I doubt whether individual electors will accept that as a meaningful extension of democracy.
One of the difficulties is that so long as there is no Assembly in being it is very easy to argue that denying powers to that Assembly is denying power to the Scottish people. It will be different when the Assembly is there, when, say, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) is Prime Minister. Then it will no longer be regarded as giving power to the people of Scotland. It will be seen clearly as giving more power to my hon. Friend. That may be sensible and effective, it may be visionary, but it may not prove a populist cause.
Why is there not a great demand for more power to be placed in the hands of Edinburgh Corporation? It is because the people of Edinburgh appreciate that that would not give more power to the people of Edinburgh but only more power to the town council. These are the considerations with which we should deal in discussing the powers we are to give.
I ask hon. Members to reflect that it is an odd paradox that those who wish us to give more power also wish us to achieve it in the shortest possible time. I would have thought there must be some relationship between the speed with which we progress and the mass of legislation we wish to devolve. If we try to give too much over too short a time my feeling is that we shall end up with a botched job, which will suit no one except, perhaps, the nationalists.
I shall draw to a conclusion by dealing with them. In a sense, the nationalists are curiously irrelevant to our debate today. It could be argued that the nationalists of all parties in the House are the only ones fundamentally opposed to devolution as a permanent solution. Their irrelevance to this debate has been underscored by the time taken by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) in dealing with the actual physical building in which they are to sit. That kind of decision can come far behind other decisions on functions, power and taxation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who said yesterday that the commitment into which we entered last autumn in no way undercut the vote of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If anything, the SNP did better and gained votes at our expense by that commitment. By a curious process of reasoning a leader in the Scotsman in the week of the election said:
The Labour Party have now got their policy on devolution right and we should all vote nationalist to make sure they carry it out.
Returning to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, perhaps he did a great disservice to the rest of us in the party by constantly harping on in the Press, saying that unless we agreed to this or that we would suffer at the polls—because once that has appeared as a

headline in the Press it is very difficult for the party to get out of it with credit, because either we do not agree, and suffer for it or we are in a situation in which it appears that we have been craven in agreeing to it in face of possible electoral defeat.
Having said that, I return to the fundamental point that there is nothing dishonourable in the representatives of the two major parties in this House saying, "We represent two-thirds of the population in Scotland who voted against separation, but here also are the representatives of the one-third who did. Let us see whether we can find a compromise solution, a half-way house". There is nothing dishonourable in that. It is the stuff of democracy. What worries me is that, whilst we have sincerely and genuinely tried to find that half-way house, and have abandoned every former position we held in the matter, throwing more and more functions and powers into the melting pot, I see no sign that the representatives of the other one-third—the Scottish National Members of this House—are as yet prepared to come to any compromise.
I end by putting to SNP Members the question which I put to their leader, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) yesterday, in an intervention. I asked him whether, if we gave meaningful devolution in the terms outlined, the SNP would accept it. He said that he would deal with it later. When he did so, he said, "We would participate if we accepted." But of course every Member in the Chamber knows that whatever Assembly we set up the SNP has already resolved to participate in it. But if it is going to participate in any Assembly clearly we cannot accept its participation as indicating its acceptance of what it regards as meaningful "devolution". I therefore ask them again. If we were to give them what they would regard as meaningful devolution, would its members reply "Yes, this means a real recognition of the legitimate demands of the Scottish people and we will accept and participate in the system and seek to make it work"? Or will they say "We will participate in it, but participate in order to exploit it—not in order to solve the problems which come before the Assembly, but in order to use each and every one of these problems as yet another argument for full independence"?
The speech by the hon. Member for Western Isles yesterday underlined the precise fears that many of us have of the way in which the Scottish National Party will use that forum. If we cannot get an answer to this question, and the Scottish National Party continues to equivocate, one course is open to us. I accept that if the majority of the Scottish people voted for independence there should be no question but that they must have it. Therefore, before we have an Assembly, let us, like the Northern Irish in their situation, and the United Kingdom in the Common Market, have a referendum. Let us ask the Scottish people to make clear their own views on the matter. If the Scottish people decide that they wish to have a devolved Assembly, with certain powers, I am sure that this House will accept it. We can then go on and make that system work. But I am sure that the referendum will scotch once and for all the idea that there is a substantial body of opinion in Scotland which really does want full independence.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I want to follow up the question of a referendum. If it is right to have a referendum on the constitutional issue of membership of the Common Market, then we should remember that any form of devolution to Wales and Scotland is a major constitutional matter. If it is right to have a referendum on the one, it is equally right to have it on the other.
The Secretary of State for Wales said that his proposals for Wales had to be acceptable and, secondly, had to prove to be effective. I do not think that his proposals are either acceptable to the people of Wales or are likely to prove effective. I want first to deal with the question of acceptability. I want to deal with it against the background that we are an over-governed people in all parts of the country. We are groaning under the weight of government.
We have no fewer than three main tiers of government. The first is the Westminster tier—and I regard the Welsh Office, which takes executive decisions, and all the bodies associated with it, as part of that tier. The second tier is the county councils, which are excessively remote, highly-centralised and were

thrust upon an unwilling people by the Conservative Government. Below that, as the third tier, we have the district councils. It may also be the case with other parts of the country, but I know that in mine I hear many complaints of the excessive government from which we are suffering.
The truth is that the Conservative Government greatly prejudiced the debate on the Kilbrandon proposals by rushing through their system of so-called reform of local government, the so-called reform of the health services, and the reorganisation of water supplies. They were all thrust through Parliament between 1970 and 1974, and the Conservative Government must take a great deal of responsibility for the fact that people are so fed up with the excessive weight of government today.
Secondly, we are an overtaxed people. We are the most heavily taxed country in Europe. Here we are, gaily discussing measures of devolution with hardly anyone mentioning the cost. Who is to pay the bill? Are we to pay the bill for ineffective devolution? Are we to have another tier of government thrust somewhere between the county council level and Westminster? It is not a tier in a form that anyone in Wales has asked for. It represents Labour reaction to pressure from nationalism in particular. I think the whole thing is extremely dubious.
I do not believe that the ordinary people of Wales are prepared to accept an additional tier. I think that the real issue is that of balance. Either we abolish the county councils—and there is a good case for that—and have multi-purpose authorities close to the ground in the form of district councils, and above them a Welsh domestic Parliament or Assembly dealing with the matters that are devolved to it from Westminster—and possibly one or two matters which could come out of the county councils—and have that as a second tier; or the real alternative is that the devolved powers proposed by the Government should go to the existing large county councils. I do not think that the people of Wales will stand for the present proposals super-added, as it were, to the county councils.
Another reason for thinking that the Government's proposals are completely


unacceptable is reflected in one of the Kilbrandon recommendations. The Kilbrandon Commission, from whose report the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted extensively, relying greatly upon it, came out unanimously in favour of proportional representation. It was pointed out yesterday that the Labour Party in Scotland has 56 per cent. of the parliamentary seats on the basis of only 34 per cent. of the votes. How can that be right or justified? The fact that the Labour Party has ignored this unanimous recommendation of Kilbrandon is political chicanery and nothing else. They have given no reason for refusing it. They have simply chosen, in their own party interest, to ignore it.
What will be the position in Wales? Wales has been heavily dominated by the Labour Party for many years. It is suggested that the distribution of block grants should be left to the elected members of the Welsh Assembly, with no proportional representation to enable minorities to be properly represented. How would that distribution take place in that kind of Assembly? I would much prefer to see it, as a practical proposition in the hands of Westminster rather than in the hands of an elected Welsh Assembly without proportional representation. With proportional representation the interests of the minority parties and of the rural areas can be better safeguarded in a Welsh Assembly. On that ground alone I do not think that the present Government proposals are acceptable in Wales.
Will the proposals be effective? What will they be effective to do? If there is to be effective devolution, we want real devolution. The Government proposals, according to the Secretary of State, will devolve executive authority to the Welsh Assembly. I would have thought that the Welsh executive authority was best wielded by a Minister, since the function of an Assembly is to decide legislative matters.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Edward Rowlands): Why?

Mr. Hooson: Because executive decisions are best taken and best carried out at ministerial level.
Taking, for example again, the question of the block grant, the Minister knows that the costs of services in many

of our scattered rural areas are much larger per head of the population than in the urban areas. A Secretary of State can size up the position and make up his mind on it. If an elected Assembly decides this issue, its decision will be heavily weighted in favour of the urban areas. The temptation to exercise that power in favour of their constituents and to divide in that way is obvious.
If there is to be effective devolution of real legislative power from this House to that Assembly we need only two tiers of government in Wales—multi-purpose authorities on the ground floor level and a domestic Parliament with legislative powers at the higher level. Otherwise I do not think we shall attract in the first instance the kind of people necessary to a Welsh Assembly, to make it really effective.
I do not think that the Government proposals are, therefore, likely to prove effective. They amount to nothing more than an unacceptable, glorified county council exercising some executive powers to be devolved from the Secretary of State. However, the truth is that no powers are to be devolved from this House to the Assembly. To call it devolution is nonsense. It is not devolution. Not one power or executive privilege exercised by this House is to be devolved on the Welsh Assembly under the Labour Party's proposals. I think therefore that the proposals will be unacceptable to most of the people in Wales and ineffective.
In future the reports of this debate will read like a period piece. I agree with the view that when our position vis-à-vis Europe emerges, and we know whether we are to remain in the EEC, totally different considerations will apply in a debate of this kind.
Basically there are two particular trends in our age. Because people want security and sustained economic health, they wish to avoid the possibilities of friction between old nation States, and, as in Europe, there is a tendency to wish to belong to larger unions. Thus, we have formed larger unions, for example, in defence, through NATO, and, in economics in the European Common Market. Therefore the concept of sovereignty that overused word becomes more and more illusory. On the other hand, among


the ordinary people of the country, there is a real and desperate feeling that Government are becoming too remote. They are anxious to keep their communities together. This leads to the other trend. How do we balance those two trends and how do we safeguard the one against the other? How do we find a practical way of dealing with this problem? We do not want too much government, yet we want government that is effective and close to the people.
This debate forms an early stage of discussing this issue. I agree that the matter must not be rushed. It is very important to obtain the right answer. I am sure that the Government are on the wrong track. At the very least Wales should have the same powers as Scotland.

Mr. Rowlands: Why?

Mr. Hooson: I will give the reason. The reason given for dealing with Scotland differently is that there is an independent Scottish legal system. However, that is an inadequate reason for distinguishing between Scotland and Wales. There are legislative measures in regard to Wales which should be separately dealt with in a Welsh Assembly. For example, the health service in Wales is administered entirely by the Welsh Office. In future Bills concerning health could deal exclusively with Wales, at the Welsh Assembly.
As the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will remember, when local government reform was introduced there was one composite Bill for England and Wales, yet many different considerations applied in discussing the Welsh part of the Bill as opposed to the English part of the Bill. Surely that measure could have been dealt with in a Welsh Assembly, if a Scottish proposal could have been dealt with in a Scottish Assembly.
I feel that the Government's proposals are inadequate and ill conceived, and I intend to oppose them. The members of my party think that England comes very much to the fore in our consideration of the Kilbrandon Report. Many of the arguments which were applied on behalf of Wales and Scotland when pressing for devolution equally apply to the regions of England. Although his conclusions were different, the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) in my

view made out a very good case for a regional Assembly in the North East of England. There is a good case for some kind of federal solution on the basis of Scotland, Wales and the regions of England. If we remain in the Common Market, and Europe evolves so that our security and economic prosperity are safeguarded within a larger union, the case for regional government in the United Kingdom will become even more important.
Therefore, we think that this is a very early stage in the evolving debate on devolution. If we move into a larger union it will be even more important to have strong regional and national units to protect the interests not only of Wales and Scotland but also the regions of England. England cannot be disregarded in that respect. If we continue with the present proposals, without any compensatory benefits to the English regions, there will be a danger of a great reaction from the English Members. That is why my party believes it essential to consider devolution to the English regions at the same time as we consider devolution to Wales and Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): In opposing the devolution proposals, is the hon. Gentleman applying his argument purely to Wales or to both Wales and Scotland?

Mr. Hooson: I apply them to Wales only. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the point. I speak as a member of the Liberal Party representing the Welsh interests here. I have made no comment, save a comparative point, on the Scottish proposals.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. John Evans: I had better make it clear at the outset that although I bear a Welsh name I am not a Welshman. What is more, although I speak with a North-East accent, I do not represent a constituency in the north-east of England. My constituency is in the north-west of England.
Like a number of other hon. Members, I believe that this debate is the most important that this House has had in its entire history. I also believe that the real background to the debate is money and power. We are discussing the raising


and the spending of public money. The debate is about who has the power to raise the money, who has the power to spend it, and who has the power to decide on what to spend it.
For generations, most of the wealth generated by all the people of all the regions of the United Kingdom has been sucked or channelled—depending on one's point of view—from the outlying regions into London and the South-East, at the behest of big business and private industry, without regard to the social consequences and the effects that it was having upon the nation.
Successive Governments have recognised the problem and they have all tinkered with it. We have had the Hailsham Report, a Minister with special responsibility for the North, development areas, special development areas, regional economic planning councils, and the Industry Act and its provisions. They are but a few of the tinkerers. But we have never succeeded in getting to the root of the problem—the serious regional imbalance existing in Britain today.
This White Paper is just another example of attempting to solve the effects of the regional imbalance without tackling the imbalance itself, and it ill-becomes a Labour Government to bring such an ill-thought-out document before Parliament.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to study an electoral map of the United Kingdom. They will see from it that the North-West and the North-East of England, Yorkshire, the West Midlands conurbation and inner London, as well as Scotland and Wales, are Labour strongholds. They must appreciate that the reason is that it is in precisely those areas where the quality of life is lowest and that it is those areas which are making the real wealth that the parasitic City and the over-prosperous south-east of England are drawing from them. It is those same areas which look to a Labour Government to improve the quality of their lives. This document will not improve their living standards one iota—not in Scotland, not in Wales, nor in any other part of the United Kingdom.
The people of Scotland and the people of Wales did not create any demand for

independence, for devolution, for self-government or for decentralisation. The demand was not created by Plaid Cymru or by the Scottish National Party. In my view, it was created by the stupidity, arrogance or inertia of central Government. It was created by the appalling superior indifference of Whitehall civil servants who, if the late Richard Crossman was right—and I strongly suspect that he was—regard Cabinet Ministers of all political parties either as damned nuisances, who try to interfere with the preordained plans of Departments, or simply as figureheads of the Departments who are provided with ministerial cars and have their speeches written for them.
Over the years, a destructive myth has been created—that Britain has the finest Civil Service in the world. It is not true. I accept that we have some outstanding individual civil servants, but, by and large, the British Civil Service, especially the Treasury, is probably the most skilled in the world at thwarting the will of democratically-elected Governments. Certainly it is the most secretive in the world.
I suggest that it is primarily the Civil Service which has been responsible for bringing us to the present highly dangerous position, with its absolute determination to keep its hands on every aspect of decision making and spending and its utter disregard of the demands from all the under-developed regions of the United Kingdom to restructure our country's economy in their favour.

Mr. Hector Monro: Whatever the rights and wrongs of the hon. Gentleman's argument, he has made some astonishing statements about the Civil Service which I am sure are not acceptable to any hon. Member present at the moment. Would the hon. Gentleman care to substantiate some of his criticisms by making comparisons with other civil servants in the world?

Mr. Evans: I took care not to interrupt any other hon. Member when he was speaking, and I am trying to abide by the Chair's request to hon. Members to keep their remarks as brief as possible. For that reason, I shall not deal with that intervention.
I am trying to draw attention to the attitude of the British civil servant which causes him to refuse flatly to hand over


any power to anyone and to retain control in his own hands, because it is that attitude which has brought us to the present situation, in which we have demands not only from Scotland and Wales but from England itself for more participation in the decision making process.
The proposals in the White Paper are not the answer. I am of the opinion that, if they are carried through in their present form, they will lead inevitably to the breakup of the United Kingdom.
I beg every hon. Member to apply a logical train of thought to the likely outcome. There is no demand for independence in Scotland and Wales, outside the wilder fringes of the nationalist parties. But there is an enormous and growing demand for democratic participation in the whole decision-making process and this applies not only to Scotland and Wales but throughout England. If we ignore it or think that we can deal with Scotland and Wales in isolation, treating England with the contempt that it receives in about 12 lines in the White Paper, we are fools, knaves or a combination of both and we shall deserve the inevitable English backlash which will arise.
What is the present situation in Scotland and Wales compared, say, with the north-west of England, in which my own constituency lies? Scotland has a population of 5,212,000 and has 71 members of Parliament. In broad average terms, each Member represents 73,400 people. Wales has a population of 2,749,000, with 36 Members of Parliament each representing, on average 76,300 people. The North-West Region of England has a population of 6,755,000, according to the latest census—

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is my hon. Friend quoting numbers of electors or populations?

Mr. John Evans: They are population figures. In the North-West, there are 78 Members of Parliament, each representing an average of 86,600 people. In other words, by north-west standards Scotland and Wales are already over-represented in this House.
What of the economies of the three regions? No one will deny that they

have similar problems—ageing and declining industry, unemployment, bad housing, poor environment, acres of derelict land, ageing population, and emigration of the youngest and best brains. Equally, no one will deny that the north-west was once the powerhouse in which the United Kingdom's wealth was created, and I say that with no disrespect to Scotland and Wales or to my native Tyneside.
It is also true that the north-west receives far less than its fair share of the nation's wealth. It receives far less than it contributes to the nation's economy. It receives far less than Scotland or Wales, even though it has greater problems than either of them.
Paragraph 8 of the White Paper makes this clear. It says:
… identifiable public expenditure per head in Scotland has been at a very significantly higher level than elsewhere in the United Kingdom".
Again, paragraph 10 says:
… identifiable public expenditure per head in Wales has for many years been running at a substantially higher level than in England.
In terms of the spoken word, no one can deny that Scotland and Wales are grossly over-represented in this House. Every month we have a Question Time devoted to Scottish and to Welsh affairs. There are Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. There are Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees. There are regular debates on their problems, especially on Scottish problems. When did this House last debate the serious problems of the North-West of England? We cannot even get a debate on the Strategic Plan for the North-West.
We are told in this document that the Scots and the Welsh are not only to have their own Assemblies, but to retain their full quota of Members in this House, presumably with all their existing privileges.
I consider this part of the document to be dangerous, wishful thinking. I submit that within months of setting up these Assemblies, there will be pressure from them to reduce the number of Scottish and Welsh Members in this House and that that pressure will certainly be heavily endorsed by the English. The Assemblies will certainly insist that Members of this House do not interfere in their affairs, and there will be a whole


range of issues about which hon. Members here will not be able to ask questions. They will be told that they are matters for the national Assemblies.
What will we make of the situation when, as could happen, we have a Tory United Kingdom Government and Labour-controlled Assemblies, or vice versa, the United Kingdom Government wanting to adopt certain policies because of international pressure and the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies refusing to implement them? Will not the pressure to break completely become irresistible?
I believe that we are tackling the problem from the wrong approach. The three national political parties have been panicked into this situation by the short-term success of the nationalist parties.
I believe that there is a tremendous case for decentralisation of parts of the administrative machine away from Whitehall into democratically elected regional councils for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Local government in England and Wales is now in a state of utter disarray. We have created a monster of Frankenstein proportions which is now developing its own terrible momentum and threatens to devour all of us. Certainly the people are utterly disillusioned with it. They were told that local government reorganisation was necessary to give them a more efficient, economical and democratic service. If it did not hurt so much, that would be the horse laugh of the century.
I remind hon. Members that this House forced on the people the reorganisation of local government in England and Wales, and presumably next year in Scotland. I suggest that it is our duty to try to rescue something from the wreckage that we have created.
With elected regional councils we could immediately scrap all the existing county councils and transfer their functions, including education, to the regional councils. The new undemocratic Regional Water Authorities and the old undemocratic, but newly constituted, Regional Health Authorities could then move to their proper places in democratic regional councils. The Economic Planning Councils would also be transferred.
Serious consideration could be given to transferring powers relating to the publicly-owned gas, electricity and Post Office services. They may be publicly owned, but they are certainly not publicly controlled. In a regional council transport policies could also be planned in a proper and meaningful context instead of the hopeless jumble that they are today.
Local income tax, based on a regional council, would be a realistic proposition instead of the present farcical talk that is going on in the Layfield Committee. Anyone with knowledge of local government finance knows that income tax based on the present local government boundaries is utterly unrealistic and would create far more problems than it would solve.
I believe that if we are imaginative enough we can open a new door on truly exciting and democratic participation in government based on the historic regions of the United Kingdom. In my view, that will strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom. I submit that this document threatens the very fabric of the United Kingdom. I beg the Government to withdraw it and to come back to us again with a truly regional policy.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: The concept of devolution can readily be debated in relation to Scotland and Wales. Indeed, the composition of the debate in the past two days and the fervour with which many speeches have been delivered are evidence of that fact. These are characteristic areas of the British Isles marked out by history and acknowledged by existing administrative arrangements to possess identities of their own. In regional terms, alone among the composite nations of the British Isles, it is the English who find it difficult in community terms to claim an identity of their own.
Yesterday, the Lord President of the Council said:
We are looking forward to the development of a new relationship between … the English regions and the central Government.
The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to define the British regions. There is no statement on the form that any regional arrangements should take. Later the Lord President said:
it would be dangerous for us to ignore these aspirations in the regions of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 3rd February 1975; Vol. 885, c. 957–8.]


There is no evidence of or any great advocacy for regionalism in England. We have not had any in this two-day debate and, although we have talked about some evidence in Scotland and Wales—that is understandable, but it has been challenged by a number of speakers—there is no evidence in English terms.
I think that to link regionalism in England with the devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales is to deal with two important matters which I recognise, but which have no similarity. There is no continuity in the concept of the devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales and the formation of regionalism in England.
The advocates of English devolution—they are limited in number—suggest division into five or eight regions. In 1972 the Town and Country Planning Association advocated 12 or 15 provincial councils.
History has not given a kingdom identity to England as a whole, and there are no easily discernible regions with local loyalties and historic associations. Natural boundaries in fact provide no support for the theme of regionalism.
It is from the planners and administrators, interested principally in the strategic use of land and industrial development, that the chief advocacy for regionalism stems. I think that I am right in saying that they think of it as an additional or third tier to elected administrations. If their advocacy succeeds, we shall have central government, regional democratically elected organisations, and local government. They do not appear to take into account the need to provide people with an acceptable basis for their personal loyalties, or to acknowledge sufficiently that administrative machines are not necessarily improved by acquiring size and supposedly increased resources.
In my experience and knowledge, there is no political advocacy for regionalism in England. I consider it extremely doubtful whether those who advocate regionalism in England could support their case on grounds of greater efficiency than is already provided by the existing system. An advocate for regionalism in England would need to demonstrate not only how present policies are failing, but how the administrative machinery could be improved by any regional arrangements.
Practical considerations also need to be taken into account regarding political representation at regional level. The political parties already find it difficult to provide enough candidates willing, suitable, and able to serve as elected representatives to operate existing local authorities. How could they successfully find the talent and ability necessary to man a third tier? Would there be an adequate community of interest on a regional basis to enable members to adopt positive policies and programmes in the context of the larger areas which regional organisations must comprise? We find that difficulty emphasised in the regional economic planning councils. Those who are on those councils find it difficult, and understandably have limited experience to enable them, to bring any judgment to bear on a regional basis.
There is also a need to consider the financial implications of the proposal for regionalism in England. To think in terms of independent resources for a regional administration is to ignore the problems concurrently facing both central and local government in finding alternative or additional sources of revenue to rates and Exchequer funds.
Again, in terms of administration, have the advocates of regionalism in England thought the matter through sufficiently? What would be the relationship among central, regional and local authorities? In any event, is a further dose of reform likely to prove acceptable after the recent reorganisation of local government? We need to be far more explicit on the purposes of regional devolution in England and to consider with greater reality what political institutions we have in mind.
Is there, in fact, room for a third tier of elected administration? At present we have strong central government, balanced by proper and active representation at county and district level. What justification can there be for a third tier in these circumstances and what possibilities are there for devolving really significant powers from either central government or local government to a third tier?
To work effectively, regionalism will need to be put into practice by men and women with motivations attuned to local needs. Will the idea of devolution stimulate a dynamic political force of its own and will it offer sufficient challenge to the


people of the right calibre to undertake government at such a level? We clearly see that that question is met in terms of Scotland and Wales, but I see it as very questionable as far as regionalism in England is concerned. Our population is highly mobile and it is important to preserve and encourage this feature of our national life. To superimpose on the country an artificial concept of regionalism might serve to hinder this mobility and unnecessarily to divide the community within itself. Indeed, this is what I suspect that any proposal for regionalism in England would lead to.
I was interested to see in The Guardian of 20th September 1974, a report on a devolution seminar arranged by the Centre for Studies in Social Policy. The article, by Mr. John Ardill, quotes Sir George Godber, former Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health. He is reported as having
wondered what would happen in England when people became aware of the 'extraordinary disparity' in the amount of money the Government was even now prepared to make available for health in Scotland compared with England.
'It is not that Scotland is getting too much, it is that England is not getting enough and within England some areas get even less'. He foresaw considerable regional agitation, particularly in the North, North-West and West Midlands.
That is my fear about devolution. It would in national terms, as far as England is concerned, be dangerously divisive.
Although it is not spelled out in that way in the Kilbrandon Report, certainly eight out of 11 signatories to the report said in the summary of conclusion, in paragraph 198:
Eight of us favour the establishment of regional co-ordinating and advisory councils, partly indirectly elected by the local authorities and partly nominated.
That is a reference to the establishment of regional co-ordinating and advisory councils. I do not think that it is what the Leader of the House was referring to and what is generally meant by an arrangement of regional government in England. It is clear that the Kilbrandon Report came out against a recommendation of that character. It is my submission that regional government would detract from the present administrative objectives of national standards and the maintenance of a fair distribution of national resources.
I welcome what the Government said in the second paragraph of the White Paper that they
regard it as a vital and fundamental principle to maintain the economic and political unity of the United Kingdom.
I very much welcome the emphasis which has been put on that most important aspect of our discussion. At present there is no acceptable case to be made for a third tier of administration in England and a series, as is proposed, of elected regional councils.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Most of the speeches which I have heard in this debate have reflected the two seemingly conflicting themes which have run through the entire discussion that we have had during the last two days. Both themes arouse the most profound emotions. One theme is nationalism and the other is the survival of the Union. It is not unfair to make the point that the survival of the Union has to do with nationalism as well—that is, British nationalism.
I am both Welsh and British—Ancient British, in fact—and I am proud of being both, although I hope that I am not chauvinistic about either. I back Wales at Twickenham and the British Lions in New Zealand. Our task in this House is to reconcile the two loyalties by creating constitutional machinery which will preserve the co-operation between the nations which inhabit these islands while, at the same time, enabling the Scots and the Welsh to have an ample voice in the managements of their own affairs.
The fear exists—it has been expressed in many speeches during the course of the debate—that further devolution will tear the Union apart. This has been another constant theme, which the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) also mentioned. It do not believe that this need happen, nor do I believe that it will happen. There are precedents both here and abroad which show that one can devolve power and maintain unity. The Isle of Man has substantial devolution—it has never been mentioned in our debates on devolution—as have the Channel Islands. The same is true of countries like Switzerland and Germany.
I do not believe that the people of Wales or of Scotland want independent statehood, as some hon. Members have claimed. This, again, is the constant theme of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), both sincere advocates of their cause. Of course there was oppression and injustice in the past, and it is very easy to arouse the emotions, especially of young people, by talk of Owain Glyndwr and William Wallace, but we cannot turn the clock back to 1282 or 1707. We cannot construct a better society on the treacherous ground of past grievances. This is the lesson, above all others, which Ireland has taught us over the last few years.
The Kilbrandon Report summed up the position in this way, in paragraph 130:
Despite divisions and gradations, there remain a strong sense of Welsh identity, a different way of looking at things and a distinct feeling that the needs and interests of people in Wales must be considered separately from those of people elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
On the other hand it says clearly, in paragraph 356:
In Wales, as in Scotland, support for the nationalist cause is not, in our view, anything like sufficient to constitute a general vote for independence.
Some hon. Members have argued that Wales and Scotland would be economically better off if they were independent. This was not the view of the Kilbrandon Commission, which sat for four years and heard a mass of evidence, reflecting every viewpoint. That commission consisted of gentlemen who were respected in all four countries. Paragraph 452 of the report says
In our view, therefore, there are no grounds for the belief that Scotland and Wales are neglected under the present system and suffer in material terms on account of their incorporation into the United Kingdom; on the contrary, they tend to receive preferential treatment. Their complete economic recovery requires an expansion of the United Kingdom economy as a whole, since their economic prospects are tied to those of England, and this would be true also if they were independent.
I accept that North Sea oil has introduced a new dimension into these matters, and the discovery of Celtic Sea oil may do the same in Wales. I do not find this argument attractive. The Scottish Council Research Institute calculated that in

1972–73 public expenditure in Scotland, including defence, totalled £2,900 million and that public sector revenues were £2,100 million. The deficit was £800 million. The nationalist argument runs, however, that oil revenue for Scotland alone would provide a surplus by 1981. The nationalist must consider the probability that the price of oil will have slumped by then. We must bear in mind that it is very expensive to exploit the oil around our coasts compared, for example, with the Middle East.
There will be substantial changes within five years and whilst the discovery of oil is a bonus, we would all do well to remember that we have lived together and been interdependent in the past and that what is discovered off the coast of Wales, Scotland or England should be shared equally by all the people of the United Kingdom. I see no other honourable argument. I respect nationalist Members and their conviction, but I appeal to them to abandon this approach, because it is not a worthy one.
Leaving separation aside, the Government are proposing radical constitutional changes and it is crucial that we should know where we are going and that we should get it right. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) referred to the county and district councils, and to the possibility that we might be electing members to go to Strasbourg it the country decides to stay in the Common Market. These are substantial points, but the hon. and learned Gentleman should bear in mind that the creation of a legislative assembly would involve an even greater bureaucracy than an executive assembly. I think that the Civil Service in Ulster is about three times the size of the Welsh Office staff.

Mr. Hooson: My proposal was tied up with the abolition of the county council. I said that if we had a Welsh Assembly the county council should be the tier to disappear. I said that we could not have all three.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right in his proposition that it would have been better if we had been discussing the reform of local government alongside the question of devolution. When I was the incumbent at the Welsh Office in 1967 I commenced the


preparation of a case to this end because I believed that it was essential to tackle these matters concurrently. However, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying that we must disentangle and rebuild British local government before we begin to think about devolution he must accept that it will be many years before there is any devolution in Wales and Scotland.
The hon. and learned Gentleman must realise the consequences of what he said. I was also disappointed to hear him say that he was proposing to fight these proposals for Wales all the way. Knowing him to be a fair-minded man, I believe he is wrong to say at this stage in a consultative debate that he will oppose a Bill which he has not yet seen. He should await the event before he declares publicly that he is going to oppose it.

Mr. Hooson: The right hon. Gentleman comes from Anglesey, so he must surely appreciate the vital importance of proportional representation to areas in rural Wales. He has not said a word about that.

Mr. Hughes: On that point, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was especially unfair when he charged the Government with chicanery. He was carrying criticism too far. The Government have continued with a system which has prevailed in this country for many years, including the periods of Liberal Government, and the criticism that he levelled at the Government over the position in Scotland is unfair because that position was far more evident in 1905 at the time of the Liberal landslide. The hon. and learned Gentleman has a right to pursue his argument, but he should not accuse the Government of chicanery, because that is going too far. It is not chicanery, and he knows it.
If proportional representation were introduced tomorrow there would be no guarantee of a significant change in the electoral position. When proportional representation was introduced in Northern Ireland recently there was no change. I am prepared to argue the merits of proportional representation with the hon. Gentleman, but I am not prepared to hear him say that my right hon. Friends are engaging in chicanery.
I come now to the position of the Welsh Assembly. I believe it should be established on the basis of two members for each of the existing parliamentary constituencies. That would provide an Assembly of 72 members. To seek to carve out new Assembly constituencies would take a great deal of time and would not achieve any appreciable advantage. The Assembly should sit for a fixed term of four years. Perhaps I should point out that I am answering the series of questions which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House asked yesterday. A fixed term of four years would give stability and continuity. One can imagine the confusion that would exist if there were two General Elections and two elections to the Assembly in one year. The people of Wales would never recover from it. With local government elections we could even end up with six or seven elections a year, and we should end up doing nothing but holding elections. We would be back not to the three-day working week but to a two-day working week.
There is a great deal to be said for an Assembly operating on committee lines. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have said, it would make for more open government, which is what we are about in this debate. The chairmen of these committees will be key figures. I envisage them as the link between the Assembly and the Secretary of State and other Ministers.
The White Paper refers to the powers of subordinate legislation which would be vested in the Assembly. We should pay careful attention to this proposal. We need to know a great deal more about its mechanics. It could strengthen democracy. Far too many orders go through the House without adequate debate or no debate at all because we do not have time to deal with them. Is it proposed that the primary legislation which comes before this Parliament will make provision for subordinate legislation to be debated in the Assembly when appropriate? It is on such a point that a preliminary White Paper for further discussion would be helpful.
There is also a case for taking the voice of the Assembly in the early stages of primary legislation. In due course


this could well be the function of English regional councils, if they are set up. This is the way to avoid the kind of confrontation where there might be conflict between the Assemblies and this Parliament, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House discussed yesterday.
Interpretation of the powers of the Assemblies might be better resolved by reference to the courts, as happens in countries where there is a written constitution, rather than by reference to the ballot box.
In addition to the substantial executive powers which are contemplated, there will be the ad hoc powers referred to in paragraph 873 of the Kilbrandon Report. The list is given in the report, and I do not want to go through it now as there is not enough time. There is profound discontent in Wales about the proliferation of nominated bodies of various kinds. I put it to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that taking on those powers could be a further worthwhile function for the Assembly.
On last year's figures, nominated bodies in Wales have about £280 million a year to spend. They are not accountable to any elected body. For example, an official in the Postal Board in Cardiff decided, of all things, that "Anglesey" was no longer to be a name for postal purposes. That has offended the people of Anglesey beyond measure. [Interruption.] Anglesey existed before counties were created. We have appealed to the Chairman of the Welsh Postal Board and to the Chairman of the Postal Board here in London, and we receive meaningless, frustrating bureaucratic replies saying that for some inadequate reason no change can be made. The people of Anglesey are determined, notwithstanding that bureaucratic obstinately to continue to use the ancient name. They are right to do so. I am urging them and my hon. Friends to do it. I do not want to be known as the Member for "North Gwynedd".
The Government are right to opt for the "expenditure" basis of finance as apposed to the "revenue basis". I can say one thing for the people of Wales without any fear of contradiction, and that is that they do not want to pay any more taxes as a result of this reform. The calculation of the block grant will

therefore be of the utmost importance. Something along the lines of a revised Goschen formula will have to be considered. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will give us further clarification of the Government's thinking on this central issue.
I conclude by reading from paragraphs 62 and 63 of the Kilbrandon Report, because of all the material I have read in connection with devolution—and there has been a great deal of it—it seems to me best to state the mood of the country. The paragraphs say:
Nevertheless, outside Northern Ireland, there has been little general disposition to question the maintenance of the union, particularly in times of political crisis and when the security of the United Kingdom has been threatened. At such times, indeed, all sections of the British people have never failed to reassert their loyalty to the wider entity.
We do not believe that this loyalty has faded. On the contrary, a new challenge would call forth the old response. Although, as we note in the country chapters which follow, there remain within the United Kingdom some marked geographical differences in social and cultural characteristics and strongly held national and regional loyalties, there exist also, quite apart from the more tangible things we have mentioned as being held in common, innumerable close ties which result from centuries of intermingling and from shared language, experience, social institutions and attitudes to such fundamental matters as personal liberty and the rule of law.
There is nothing more important than personal liberty and the rule of law. The report says that
a new challenge would call for the old response.
We should accept that challenge with good will and faith, do what is necessary to secure the Union and, at the same time, give the people of Wales and Scotland a stronger voice in their own affairs and a renewed sense of the dignity of nationhood.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: One of the rare privileges of being a Member is to listen to debates which cross party lines, in which we do without some of the usual dogma, in which the blinkers are taken off Members and, just for once, they express their real views and convictions on a subject such as the one we are discussing.
I was disappointed that in opening the debate yesterday the Lord President of the Council got bogged down in detail


early in his speech, and failed to present an imaginative approach to what is a debate on broad lines of principle regarding the future constitution of the United Kingdom, and not just a debate about Scotland and Wales.
One of the difficulties from which all hon. Members suffer is an inability to look ahead and plan for the sort of Parliament, the sort of structure of government, we shall need in the next decade or so, as most of our thought is naturally based on what we have been doing during the past decade. That is unfortunate, because most of the criticisms of the various systems of government and parliament that have been presented tend to hark backwards rather than to look to the future.
The Lord President's lack of imagination was second only—I say this with a great deal of sorrow—to the persecution complex that is constantly evident on the nationalist bench. It is a great pity, and they do themselves and Scotland and Wales a great disservice, when they continue to harp on those countries as being poor, downtrodden, colonial States, instead of their both being a vigorous part of the United Kingdom.
However, I was equally disappointed by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), when he suggested that the level of social security benefits was a vital factor in persuading the Scots against separatism. I hope that he will reconsider this, and agree with me that the case for the United Kingdom is much stronger than the level of social security or any other such benefit.
If nevetheless we are to have a change in our constitution and if we are to have an Assembly or Parliament in Edinburgh and in Cardiff, there are many questions to be asked, as the Lord President rightly said, about Scotland, Wales and England. Contrary to the views expressed by nationalist Members of Parliament, it is true that anyone who visits Scotland today and who has not been there for some years will notice that there is a new confidence and a marked change of attitude.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: That is why we are here.

Mr. Fletcher: The feeling of remoteness and relative economic insignificance has given way to a new sense of purpose within the national and international community. As we can hear, there is no shortage of people who are willing to claim credit for this achievement. Just as failure is an orphan, so success has a thousand fathers—in Scotland's case at least 11. What matters is the need for us in this House to harness the new confidence and the new national pride in a way that will be beneficial to Scotland and to the United Kingdom.
Scotland's new confidence is based on economic improvement. Successive Labour and Conservative Governments can take credit for the regional policies which have brought about a transformation of the Scottish economy. I cannot think of a comparable country in the Western world that has enjoyed such an industrial revolution as has taken place in Scotland since the end of the last war. Scotland's confidence has been boosted by the appearance of North Sea oil. When all the easy and cheap criticisms and gibes are made about Scottish affairs, we would do well to remember the new manufacturing and service industries that are evidence of the benefits to Scotland of the United Kingdom. It may well be that North Sea oil will prove to be the icing on the economic cake, but I think we would do well to remember that even with North Sea oil, and even if the oil proves as beneficial to the Scottish economy as some people make out, nine out of 10 jobs in Scotland will still depend on the success of the British economy. The British economy will still be the key to Scotland's economic success and prosperity.
In the circumstances that I have outlined it would make no sense for Scotland to reduce its influence and to rush to demote itself as a constituent part of the United Kingdom. It would make no sense for Scotland to demote its influence in this Chamber and in Government here and in Whitehall.
There is another question to which I address myself which cannot be ignored by those who advocate change in the British constitution and in the way in which we run our affairs. This is a matter that has been raised by a number


of right hon. and hon. Members—namely "How does England feel about the proposed change?" England must be the key to any constitutional change that takes place. The question might well be asked "How important to England is the United Kingdom?" Would it matter very much to England if Scotland and Wales were to do their own thing and to go their separate ways? I believe that what happens to the rest of the United Kingdom is of paramount importance to England and to everyone who does not wish to witness the break up of the United Kingdom.
There is little evidence in this debate and little evidence generally that England is aware of the likely consequences of treating this subject as a purely Scottish or Welsh affair rather than as a British problem. After listening to the hon. Members for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) and Newton (Mr. Evans), I believe that there are elements of what, perhaps inadvisedly, I shall call nationalism in England. There are areas such as the North-East and the South-West where people feel more than a little neglected or out of touch with Westminster and Whitehall.

Dr. Keith Hampson: The survey which the Kilbrandon Report undertook showed clearly that the North reflected that sort of disenchantment to a greater degree than Wales and not much less than Scotland itself.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate that Scotland is in a privileged position within the structure of government in the United Kingdom. Scotland is represented in the Cabinet and in Government generally, as any English Member will recognise. In this House Scotland is in a far more privileged position than any other part of the United Kingdom, yet the drive for change is coming from Scotland. The position in Wales is roughly comparable.
I do not believe that the drive for change can be ignored. The question is, if we go ahead with change, what sort of Assembly shall we have, what structure of government shall we have in the United Kingdom and in the component parts? It has been said by several hon. Members that the Royal Commission on the Constitution rejected

federalism. Indeed it did. The reason it gave was that it was a cumbersome system and much too legalistic. It took the view that it would lack balance in the United Kingdom because of the predominance of England. Those are valid arguments. If we are to make a major change in our constitution we must do it properly or not at all.
It is hard for me to imagine any constitutional change which would be meaningful and effective, which would evolve political as well as economic power to the constituent parts of the United Kingdom and which would not be in itself some kind of federal system. Anything else is likely to be little more than a talking shop. All that it would do would be to add to the frustrations which are evident in Scotland and elsewhere.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) has said—namely, that the relationship between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom needs to be renegotiated and that in a federal system, because of the nature of the United Kingdom, we could not have four equal constituent parts? Therefore, the only meaningful way to renegotiate the relationship between the four parts is to give Scotland and Wales self-government?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not agree with that proposition. We should be considering the British constitution and the way in which we run our affairs. We should be looking forward to the sort of Parliament and the sort of Government that we shall need during the next decade or more.
Earlier last month I was in the United States and Canada. I spoke to politicians and officials. I began my remarks with the suggestion that we might have in the United Kingdom before very long a two-tier system of government. Invariably the answer was "Tough luck, but welcome to the club". The Americans and the Canadians find their federal system cumbersome and tiring. They get involved in lengthy negotiations between the provincial or State Government on the one hand and federal Government on the other. Regional and national interests are reconciled in a way that is not particularly apparent in the United Kingdom. That is why if we are to do this job we should



try to do it properly or not at all. I do not want to become involved in a lot of the mechanics except to say that such a system in the Scottish sense would mean that in Scotland there would be a First Minister and a Cabinet and not the committee system that has been mentioned. The First Minister and the Cabinet would be responsible for Scotland's domestic affairs. That would be in addition to a directly elected Assembly.
If we are looking for a guide to the sort of terms of reference that the Assembly and Government might have, we could do worse than to look at the terms of reference that a provincial Government has in Canada. Further, I happen to think that the office of Secretary of State should be abolished as Scotland's interests would be better served by a First Minister whose political base and appointment was independent of the British Prime Minister of the day.
The key lies in the attitude of English Members and of England as a whole. I hope that those of us who advocate change, as I do, will be able to arouse in our English colleagues some enthusiasm towards the situation in England and the changes that will have to be made in England if the Government's proposition is to be a success and to work out in the best interests of all the people of the United Kingdom.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: May I first thank the Chair for so unexpectedly allowing me to take part in the debate? The usual channels said something like, "Can you make a short speech?" to which I answered "Yes", and I shall keep to within 10 minutes.
I was struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid)—the new Social Democrat from north of the border. Why he should take a Dick Taverne attitude when that attitude has been rejected south of the border I do not know. It is interesting that he should call in aid Jimmy Barnes and Jimmy Maxton in advocating this peculiar Right-wing social democracy. It has a family interest to me, because it was to my wife that the hon. Member wrote his resignation from the Labour Party. It was also to her, six months before, that he had applied to join. Three weeks later he joined the

Scottish National Party. He will understand why I treat with not unnatural scepticism his great devotion to the principles of Socialism.
I wish to refer to another hon. Member who is not here. All Scottish nationalists should be here when we are discussing our country. I refer to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), as an illustration of what gets thrown out as accepted fact in the process of mythology which is actively assisted by members of the SNP. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, in his maiden speech said:
Even before oil came upon the scene the respected and scrupulously non-political Scottish Council for Industry indicated that Scotland had a balance of payments surplus."—[Official Report, 30th October 1974; Vol. 880, c. 328.]
That struck me as curious, so I wrote to the Scottish Council for Industry, from whom I received a letter in the following terms:
I have inquired into the question raised in your letter but can find no record of the Council having stated that Scotland has no balance of payments deficit. I can only suggest that you seek clarification from …
and the letter names the hon. Member. I looked further and discovered that the council had delved into its records back to 1952, which is certainly pre-oil, and no such statement had been made. Here it is dropped out in the House as an accepted fact. It passes into the columns of the media in Scotland and becomes a fact. It is not a fact. That is an example of some of the problems with which I wish to deal.
Before getting on to my main topic I wish to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). He gave a history of the situation within the Labour Party over the last few years. It was rather like Hamlet saying
Something is rotten in the State of Denmark
without Hamlet being present, because the Prince was missing. I remind hon. Members of this important declaration:
In rejecting separatism we feel that we must also reject calls for a Scottish Parliament, even on a federal basis. As the trends in industry are proving to be towards bigger and bigger units, we believe that it is essential to have a strong central government to ensure society has adequate control to mould industrial growth to suit its needs.
That passage is headed "Scottish Parliament—a Bogus Proposition", and it was


written five years ago by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire.
I have no objection to that. As Keir Hardie said, no change would be a monument to failure. But I ask, when people make such dramatic changes in such a short time, that they give us an explanation. What new situation has caused the change of view? We want an explanation of it.
I ask, further, that people should express their new-found beliefs with a little modesty and less certainty. I have found nothing more appalling in this argument than the incredible certainty of so many people who have stated their views within the last 12 months.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a sign of an adult mind to be able to change one's opinions? Does not he agree that he has made a substantial change from a view which he previously held?

Mr. Buchan: I do not know which view the hon. Gentleman is talking about. He is probably referring to my having been in the Communist Party, which I left to join the Labour Party. I did not immediately say how wrong I had been. I took a long time to think out my philosophy, and I have written at great length of my change of view. But my views are known in Scotland. I did not suddenly say "These are my views" as if no change had taken place. We are debating a serious matter—our nation—not cheap interventions.

Mr. MacCormick: You were.

Mr. Buchan: I was not. I was asking for a little humility and a little less certainty. I should also like a little less frivolity from SNP members who have giggled their way through two days of debate on their own nation.
I want now to deal with the central problem. A major error has been made by many people in believing that one can somehow alter a basic social economic structure by a constitutional change. Those people have misunderstood the nature of their problem, and their analysis is wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) had it right. With one exception, the nature of the problem Scotland faces is exactly

analagous to the economic situation that has prevailed in many other areas throughout England. There is no basic difference between the problems of the North-East, the heavy industry-based North-West, and West-Central Scotland. Therefore, it is an economic problem.
The Scottish Trades Union Congress understood that in its evidence, in which it said that it did not want a Scottish Parliament. The STUC believed that the Assembly should have direct control only over those matters which are at present administered through the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The STUC recognised that this was a common economic problem. Therefore, the analysis is wrong and the diagnosis is wrong.
The second element is alienation. Hon. Members are right to refer to alienation from Government, but that, too, is common. The lassie who serves on the counter at Jo Lyons across Bridge Street can see Parliament every day, but she is every bit as remote from Government as anyone who lives at John O'Groat's or in the Orkney Islands, 700 miles to the north, where I was brought up.

Mr. MacCormick: What does that prove?

Mr. Buchan: It proves that the analysis is wrong.
The third element is that there is a sense of nationhood in Scotland, which I share. If people believe that they are a nation, they are a nation, but it does not necessarily mean that a State follows from that. There are probably no nation States in the world, in that sense, thinking in terms of the co-terminous nature of nation and State. That is the whole substance of the argument.
Let us now look at the problem of the Assembly. As I see the future, vociferous forces will be set in motion as a result of the simple proposition that people should elect those who will fight for the sole issue which will exist. That issue is the strength of the Scottish Assembly in relation to London. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire used the comparison of the EEC to draw attention to the so-called fragility of the Union. However, in the EEC there are nine countries—perhaps soon it will be eight—each balancing the other. If two


poles are established—Edinburgh and London—it will be simply a question of which party will fight hardest to gain most resources. This will immediately create the separatist issue.
In the process, even the most responsible members of the Assembly would adopt this attitude. Undoubtedly, the SNP element would be large—perhaps a majority. Responsible members of other parties would be forced into taking this vociferous attitude. The result would be separation within 10 years. That is why the Scottish nationalists support this move. That is the best evidence we have of our errors.
The sense of disillusionment which will arise as that happens will lead to the breakdown of the Assembly and will give rise, not to a national alignment, but to the kind of bitterness which will lead to a Right-wing, authoritarian régime. That is the scenario. There is one way in which we can begin to deal with the mess into which we have got ourselves. My position is simple. I am in favour of devolution. I believe in devolving power from those who have it to the ordinary people whether they are in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cornwall or Cardiff. I believe in the ordinary people beginning to control their means of organising. I do not particularly like States. I believe in democracy.
I do not think that the equation of all life with a geographical entity is democracy. It can be over-government, but not necessarily democracy. We have to emancipate working people in this way. I do not think we do it by splitting up sections of the working class and setting them against one another, so that the North seeks the grants which are sought by Scotland.
The second thing we must do is ask people whether it is their wish to have such an Assembly. Here I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). If, over a period, people say quite firmly that they want this, that settles the issue. They ought to be asked, "Do you want total separation?" That is the issue. In putting that question, the Scottish people will have the chance to reject separation. Then we can get on with trying to sort out a devolved Parlia-

ment with maximum powers for the nation of Scotland, to which I belong. I resent the frivolous attempts of others to pre-empt this nation.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. W. Benyon: As "a mere Englishman"—and I use that Elizabethan description advisedly—and as a representative of an English constituency, I make no apology for voicing what has been described as the English backlash. It is interesting that we are debating a Government White Paper which makes certain proposals, and yet my researches and those of the Library show that the principle of devolution has never previously been debated in this House. There was a Speaker's Conference on the subject in 1919, and two Liberal Bills were introduced in the 1966 Parliament which were not discussed at any length.
In logic, devolution on anything except a minor scale is nonsense. It is certainly nonsense economically—to Balkanise the United Kingdom when nearly every other grouping in the Western world is seeking a greater unity must be nonsense. It is also political nonsense for reasons stated by a number of hon. Members. If we put our hand to this particular plough there is no turning back. We all know that the people who sit on the nationalist benches will do everything they can to exploit every difficulty and to enlarge every dispute between any Welsh and Scottish Parliament and Westminster. They look, as they are entitled to do, to complete independence.
The real question that faces the House is whether the people of Scotland and Wales want this solution. If it can be proved that they do, the choice is stark, and has already been dealt with by a number of speakers. Either we accede to that demand or, like Lincoln in the United States, we fight to preserve the Union.

Mr. MacCormick: In view of the fact that the present Government have decided that the only way the nation can decide what is to happen on the Common Market is via a referendum, will he agree that we should hold a referendum in Scotland to decide what degree of self government the Scots want? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that will be the ideal way to settle the issue?

Mr. Benyon: That must be implicit in my remarks. A referendum would be one way, and if it proved that this demand existed, two choices would be open to the Westminster Parliament. I do not believe that this demand exists but, if it does, let there be no doubt that it will be equalled in very strong terms by English nationalism. It will be as strong as any demand outside the borders.
I represent a constituency of 82,000 voters, of which approximately 30,000 voted for me. Let me say, in passing, that those 30,000 voters were considerably more than the entire electorate of the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council—but that is an English problem and does not concern this debate. My constituents do not realise at the moment that the mass of highly objectionable legislation passing through the House at present is being allowed through by the votes of the Celtic fringe. It is unarguable that that is so. Even the October election result produced, in England, a Labour majority of three over the Conservative Party, and the balance is held by the Liberals. Even now, on present constituency sizes, the average size of Scottish seats is 52,000, the average of Welsh seats is 56,000 and for England the figure is 65,000.

Mr. Powell: And Northern Ireland?

Mr. Benyon: The position there is even worse. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) described the situation in his speech. Whatever happens, this imbalance needs correcting.

Mr. Powell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Benyon: If certain functions are to be devolved to the Scottish or Welsh Parliaments, we, the English Members of this Parliament, have every right to demand that the Welsh and Scottish Members should have no say when these matters are discussed here at Westminster.
My own preference—this has been echoed in other speeches in this debate—is that there should be no devolution at all. I include in that view direct rule for Ulster. But if there is to be devolution on subjects such as education and housing, the Assemblies, the powers and the repre-

sentation at Westminster must be on the same basis, whether for Scotland, Wales or Ulster and indeed for England. If these aspects are not covered in the Bill produced by the present Government, I and many of my hon. Friends will—like the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), but for different reasons—fight it clause by clause and line by line. We take the view that what is sauce for the Welsh and Scottish geese—if that is an apt description—is sauce also for the English gander.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I have been very interested in this debate, which has spread over two days, since it has given an opportunity for many hon. Members to give their views on devolution. It is apparent that there has been an insufficient opportunity in the past, as we have seen from the comments of many hon. Members, to debate these matters and they constitute one of the most crucial subjects ever to face the United Kingdom.
Reference has been made in other speeches to the fact that the Government are proposing various matters on devolution out of their own appreciation of the needs of Scotland, Wales and, perhaps subsequently, of the English regions. Some people have given credit or demerit for this policy to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru although in fact, looking at it from a Scottish point of view, thanks for the situation must really go to the Scottish people for having impressed on the Labour Party opposite, and even on the Conservative Party, the need for some self-government.
It is perfectly obvious that in this debate we are discussing the question of devolution. In that sense we are not discussing the question of self-government for Scotland, which the Scottish National Party would like to see achieved, because it is obvious, looking at my colleagues in this Parliament, that there are only 11 of them. Even allowing for the iniquities of the British electoral system, on a voting system worked out in terms of proportional representation we would not have that democratic mandate which the Scottish National Party has always said should be the target if we are to succeed in our achievement of self-government—that we must get a majority of seats in this House. That is the criterion laid upon us by successive Governments.
The matter of a referendum has been raised. We have certainly conceded this recently in connection with the Common Market. It is for the Government to decide what they ought to do. One thing the Government cannot do is to let this matter go on mouldering, trying to push it out of sight every time the issue of self-government or devolution crops up—because if there is one thing that is now certain, it is that the Scottish people do not wish the subject to be hidden under the green benches of the House of Commons any longer. A decision is required.
Probably the most disappointing part of this two-day debate is that we have been discussing what might be the answers to various questions posed by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President right at the start of his speech. Many of us had come here prepared to disregard some of the Press reports which we have seen about the lack of decision on the part of the Government, in the hope that the Government might at this stage have been able to give some lead on what they feel should happen. It is 11 months since the February General Election, when the political complexion of the Government changed. That has given them a considerable period in which to work out their ideas. Certainly, it cannot be said of them that they would have approached the issue of devolution without any thinking whatever until February 1974 because they had themselves set up the Kilbrandon Commission on the Constitution which in due course of time—almost the eternity which, it seems, is taken by Royal Commissions—eventually reported and helped to project the issues involved in this debate on the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom.
What surprises me, in a sense, is that even for those who look at the matter in purely British terms, there has been very little debate focussed on the need for reform of the House of Commons itself and what can be done, for instance, to deal with the problems of the congestion of business which frequently keeps us up late at night. There are questions dealing with European legislation, which seem to be taking another half day or day of the House of Commons almost every week.
These are problems because a House of this kind, regulating the affairs of one of the most highly-centralised countries in the world, is faced with a crisis in dealing with its own business. I speak humbly, as a comparatively new Member, but I am surprised that very little attention has been directed to the parliamentary need for decentralisation or delegation of decision making.
Passing from that general aspect to what must be done in relation to Scotland, the lack of any lead having been given by the Government at the outset of the debate will be criticised very strongly in Scotland. I have not yet had an opportunity of seeing all the Scottish newspapers so far today but certainly some comment is critical. People are waiting for something to happen and all that we have had, in a momentous announcement, was that the Assembly was to be located in Edinburgh. That is, no doubt, an important decision, but perhaps minor in relation to the functions which the Assembly will have. I did not overhear what the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said just then from a sedentary position. Perhaps he will discuss it with me later. The whisper of objection to the lack of decision making on the part of the Government will grow until it becomes a roar, and it is up to the Government to make up their mind quickly and to prevaricate no further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) have spelt out some of our ideas in relation to the functions which the Assembly should have. I want to concentrate attention on some of the constitutional issues which might be raised in relation to some of its principal functions. The first is the question of the executive structure. Kilbrandon recommended a Cabinet, with a chief minister who would be responsible to the Assembly—in other words, out of the collective will of the Assembly, elected by the Scottish people, there would be executives or officers who would be responsible for carrying out its decisions.
This is very important, because the Government have decided in principle to retain the office of Secretary of State. It is clear that, within the Cabinet in London, the office of Secretary of State


must be one of some significance, and he has certain responsibilities in relation to the administration of Scottish affairs and is answerable to the House of Commons as a whole, particularly to the Scottish Members. But if we go for the situation where there is a chief minister or a group of ministers responsible to the Assembly, and if the Assembly has in turn taken over the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, what is to happen? It is the situation described in the biblical rule—that no man can serve two masters.
Who will the Secretary of State for Scotland serve? Will he serve the Assembly, which is responsible for many of his functions? Or will he cease to have such functions and be representative of the Scottish interest in the Cabinet generally? This aspect must be elucidated by the Government. They are in the constitutional quandary over it. Should they take a decision to continue with the office of Secretary of State and also to have a Cabinet structure, sooner or later one of them will be phased out. I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) was correct in his assessment of that position.
One other important thing would come out of an executive structure for the Assembly—who would be responsible for negotiations with Whitehall? Who would be responsible for negotiations with the Treasury for adjustment of the budget of the Assembly? If, instead of an executive structure, we had a committee structure, it would leave us with the position that committees would have to appoint delegations for negotiations over what the block grant should or should not be, and what elements might form part of it. This is one of the difficult matters in relation to a committee structure.
If we adopt the committee structure, we are then faced with the question of responsibility for steering through legislation. It is relatively easy for people with ministerial responsibility to take a decision, bring the legislation before the legislature, having worked in conjunction with the Civil Service in its preparation, and try to persuade the Assembly or the parliamentary body to accept it as produced in its draft form. But if a Committee of the House was responsible both for the preparation of the legislation and

for steering it through, we should find ourselves in a legislative jungle. That is one problem which the Government must look at seriously in their constitutional review.
Probably one of the most important facets in the relationship of the Scottish Assembly with Westminster and Whitehall is that of funding. The matter has been raised by many hon. Members. It is well accepted that where the purse is, there the power resides. If we take the independent form of funding away from Scotland, the Assembly must of necessity remain a neutered body. If the Government give the Assembly the opportunity to raise finance, looking at it from the point of view of those who might be against the idea of Scottish devolution evolving into something more radical, and if they accept the argument that the power of the purse will take it a long distance to power, we shall find that the Government have gone further than they intended.
Looking at the matter from the point of view of many people in Scotland—I do not pretend that it is held by all people in Scotland—there will be a substantial claim that Scotland should have a direct interest in the revenues coming from the exploitation of North Sea oil. Anyone who has fought an election in Scotland during these past two years, or who has attended parliamentary debates recently, will know that this is a matter of great concern to the people of Scotland. We want this natural resource, which has been found off our coast, to be used for the restructuring of the Scottish economy and for the improvement of the social condition of the Scottish people.
I said that not everybody in Scotland would accept that viewpoint. Some hon. Members on both sides will immediately take exception if I say that everybody in Scotland holds that view. But a substantial number of people in Scotland feel that there should be direct funding of Scottish governmental activity from the oil revenues.
One of the problems of fund raising for the Scottish Assembly is the difficulty of evolving a separate taxation system or of the additional costs of the assessment and splitting up of the accounts of companies operating in different areas of the United Kingdom. However, if we apply the argument to oil in the first instance, before


the Government throw in their hand in dealing with the oil companies, as I suspect they will, and rely upon the original estimate of £3,000 million per year in revenues once oil flows at the full rate, it will be simple to earmark the taxable oil profits to Scottish purposes.
If the Government accept the principle of what I am saying, they will have to decide what proportion they wish to give to Scotland. A petroleum revenue tax can be very simply worked out in relation to oil exploitation in the Scottish jurisdiction sector of the North Sea. Again, if we work on the basis that oil companies involved in the contracting exercises of the exploitation of oil are to be registered in Scotland and have their accounts arising from the North Sea oil, it will be a simple matter both to earmark the proportions of the PRT and corporation tax arising from the ultimate profits after deduction of PRT. There is no difficulty in that. The Government must reconcile the battle which they undoubtedly will have with the Treasury, which intensely dislikes the idea of earmarking any funds away from general purposes, with the clamant demand of the Scottish people for participation in Scottish oil resources.
Looking at the economic situation of Scotland, it is clear that in these difficult days the only real chance of restructuring the Scottish economy comes from the vast sum of cash available for investment in the Scottish economy. It has been estimated that it may take £10,000 million to improve the environment and economic structure of West-Central Scotland alone. That is the magnitude of the task which faces government in Scotland, whether it emerges from Westminster or from a Scottish Assembly.
I suggest that the Government should give close attention to the devolution of trading and industrial functions to the Scottish Assembly. We are not asking for an Assembly which will deal just with legislation or with the functions which the Secretary of State exercises at present. We want it to deal also with matters which will lead to an improvement in employment in Scotland. At the basis of much of the demand for self-government is the wish for greater opportunities within Scotland. We believe that it is from the inefficient economic

policies from Westminster in the first instance in managing the British economy and secondly from policies which have in their centralist aspects discriminated against the development needs of Scotland that a great many of the problems of emigration and unemployment have stemmed.
Reference has been made to the report of the Scottish Council Research Institute. If hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom wish to look at the possibilities of devolved economic policy, I counsel them to consult that report.
This House must realise that people in Scotland insist that trade, industry and economic opportunity be among the first objectives of the Scottish Assembly. In our view, the delegation of powers already made under the Industry Act to the Secretary of State, while welcome, is insufficient and should be followed up with the delegation of further and more substantial powers.
I want briefly to refer to two other important matters raised in the debate. The first concerns the Common Market. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire was right to refer to the political consequences of certain decisions which might be taken by the United Kingdom about the Common Market. They could provoke a different response to the question of government within Scotland. The Government must consider that as a general possibility. In addition, they must consider now, in their devolution discussions, the kind of representation which the subordinate Scottish Assembly which they have in mind might have in the Council of Ministers or in the EEC structure if it eventually proved that the United Kingdom was to remain in the EEC. That is a thought which I leave with the Government to consider at what, unfortunately, has almost become their leisure.
The final matter which I wish to raise concerns the veto powers to which the Lord President referred. The right hon. Gentleman obviously feels that he is picking his way through a minefield in relation to reserve powers and to the right of the United Kingdom legislature to override decisions which might be taken by a Scottish Assembly even in relation to the functions devolved upon it but which at


some date the United Kingdom legislature might decide were not welcomed by the United Kingdom generally.
The Government should bear in mind that even if they considered putting into the Bill some provision enabling Westminster to override the Scottish Assembly, those powers might not necessarily be exercisable. It is one thing to put such powers into a Bill. It would be quite another for any Government to try to override a body which had been elected by the Scottish people.
We are disappointed at the lack of progress that has been made by the Government during the 11 months that they have been in power. It suggests a reluctance on the part of certain Ministers to carry forward the proposals in the Labour Party manifesto in a purposeful and positive fashion. Time will tell. We ask the Government to keep to their timetable and to produce specific proposals for discussion in this House at a very early date.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I welcome the amount of emphasis on the United Kingdom element in this issue. The unity of the United Kingdom must be of prime concern. That does not mean uniformity, rigidity, and a loss of any chance of developing wider democratic action. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had this point in mind in seeking to meet what he and I feel is the need for democratic control and decision making at regional level.
We already have regional government of a sort in England. We have it in the form of the officers of our Government Departments who take major decisions, in effect, off their own bats, and the enormous number of regional statutory bodies that we have all been responsible for setting up throughout the country. We in the North-East are not prepared to accept that situation without some attempt being made to establish effective democratic control.
Whatever may be the attitude amongst the constituents of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones), who said that there was no feeling or demand for regionalism, certainly in the North-East and in many other parts of England there are strongly growing demands, all the more strength-

ened by the possibility of major changes industrially and economically proposed for Scotland.
We have been left with an unsatisfactory set of compromises which amount to the Local Government Act and give no regional provision for major planning, land use, or independent finance. However, we could start by reviewing the rôle and constitution of the regional economic advisory councils as either directly or indirectly elected bodies with an effective link with the major regional ad hoc bodies responsible for health matters and water. I see no reason why an experiment on those lines could not be begun in the north of England where there is a real demand for it to prove its value and importance.
I should like to emphasise what was bluntly and vigorously expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin). I do not think that anyone in the North-East, or probably in the North-West and many other areas, could accept major devolution of industrial and economic decision making to Scotland without its full impact on England and Wales being understood.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House must be grateful for having had the opportunity of a two-day debate to express their views on this important matter. This is the first occasion since publication of the Kilbrandon Committee Report on which we have had the opportunity, in Government time, to debate this vital issue on the Floor of the House.
The great advantage of the debate has been to bring out into the open the whole question of devolution, which has unfortunately been too much behind the closed doors of the different parties represented in this House. The subject has been debated in the media at great length, but there have been only reports of the views of hon. Members and it has been refreshing to hear them stated in the House in this debate. The most significant result of the debate is that, as many of us suspected, the views held have been shown to cut across party boundaries. Let us not minimise the importance of this debate, which has been useful in


bringing out into the open the opinions of many hon. Members.
Until we have resolved the arguments of principle about what form of evolution is appropriate we should not put too much pressure on the Government to spell out in great detail what they intend. I felt that the Lord President yesterday was a little inclined to put detail ahead of principle. I was more encouraged by the Secretary of State for Wales, who tried fairly to deal with the major matters of principle. We want to know where the Government stand on the principles. If there is still doubt, I would not mind the debate being extended until these matters are resolved, before we reach conclusions on details. Dealing with the detail first is putting the cart before the horse.
The debate has also helped, for the first time, to emphasise the implications of devolution for the whole United Kingdom—not just Scotland, Wales and Ireland. We have all welcomed the speeches of hon. Members from England. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) said yesterday, the consequences of getting this wrong will be there for us to regret for generations, and will be felt not only in Scotland and Wales but by every citizen of the United Kingdom. That is why, at this late stage, the views of hon. Members from England have been of particular value.
Up to now, there has been a temptation for hon. Members from England to ask what this debate means for the political and electoral balance of the House. That is important, but much more so is the long-term stability of the United Kingdom—and we must take account of the views of everyone in the Kingdom. I hope that we shall continue to have contributions of the English point of view when we discuss details in Committee. If this matter is ignored south of the border and we do not carry the whole Kingdom with us, we may regret what we do.

Mr. MacCormick: Does the hon. Member think, as I do, that what is much more important than some airy-fairy idea about the United Kingdom is the relationship between the Scots and the English? Does he not agree that that is more meaningful than just maintaining a certain set idea about the United Kingdom?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has shown himself in his true colours. He has shown that he speaks for a minority in Scotland, in referring to the airy-fairy nature of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a reality—and I say that as a Scot who has relations and friends on both sides of the border and in the Commonwealth. The nationalists have shown they are not prepared to accept the realities of the situation which face the people of Scotland today. The people of Scotland understand these things, if the hon. Member does not.
If things go wrong and we reach the wrong conclusions, bitterness and divisiveness will be unleased. An unwise action over the next year may be something we shall regret for many generations to come. We must try to make a much clearer distinction than hitherto of some of the principles underlying the debate. I regret that some hon. Members seemed to be dealing more with details than with principles. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) said that he wanted us to discuss principles, but he then went on to deal with the question of where the Assembly should be located, its exact number of members, and so on. I do not believe that he and his party have worked out precisely on what principles they feel this devolution should take place. He and his party have allowed themselves to be carried far down the emotional road of nationalism, but they have ignored some of the realities which must be faced.
This fact was highlighted by the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who referred to the rising crescendo of the Hampden roar. This is the way in which many Scottish National Party Members have seen the whole debate—in the form of the Hampden roar. I prefer to see it, as do my friends, relatives and constituents, in terms of what is good for Scotland—the prosperity of Scotland, jobs, the standard of living and the quality of life. These are the things which concern me, not simply the Hampden roar. I hope that in further considering this matter the Government will look at this not simply as a reaction to a particular political situation. There is a political situation, and we are right to recognise it and to take it into account. I am quite prepared to face up to reality,


and that reality is that only a small minority of people want separation. That is the reality the rest of us take into account, unlike the nationalists.
The debate has demonstrated precisely where the Scottish National Party stands. Too often in Scotland, in the constituencies and in the General Elections, the Scottish National Party has sought to be all things to all men. It stands for devolution without defining devolution. When its members talk of self-government they carefully seek to avoid mentioning the word "separation".

Mr. MacCormick: rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall not give way. The debate has shown clearly and categorically that the Scottish National Party stands for separation, that it is a party of separation, and that it would be better termed the Scottish Separatist Party. Only a minority of people in Scotland believe in that, but we must take account of political motivation and political feelings in Scotland.
Let us get down to the roots of the debate. It is about one thing more than any other, and that is the question whether we shall have better government for Scotland. That is the point from which I start, and I believe that it is the question by which people in Scotland and elsewhere will judge what we seek to do. Better government must be our objective, and the touchstone by which we judge the Government's proposals.

Mr. Crawford: The question is not "Shall we have better government?" but "Shall we have a Government in Scotland?"

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I enjoy giving way to members of the hon. Gentleman's party, because they always show themselves up a little more. They show what they really stand for, and what an irresponsible party theirs is. The hon. Gentleman was not here yesterday. If that is the kind of respect he shows for the Government we have now, what kind of example does he set to people in Scotland and elsewhere? His is a party of demagogues, who seek to work with words instead of dealing with the realities of Government.

Mr. MacCormick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No. I would love to give way if I had more time, because if I did so the hon. Gentleman and his party would put their feet still further into the mire, and disappear down the drain. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman and his party do not want to hear the principles on which devolution should take place. They do not want to hear the arguments. I hope that hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom will note how they try to conduct the debate in Scotland. Fortunately, people in Scotland are not so foolish as to be deluded by this.
There are two principles on which we must work towards better government. First, we must achieve more diffusion of power from the centre. In many different ways we must seek government closer to those who are governed. But we must be careful when we say that. We must see that it does not just roll off our lips as a glib phrase instead of becoming a reality. I hope that the Government will pay more than lip-service to it.
It does not go without notice in Scotland that the planning agreements the Government are talking about entering into, and their proposals for organisations such as the National Enterprise Board, are moves of a centralising nature. These vitiate the diffusion of power which many of us genuinely seek. Therefore, I hope that the Government will seek to temper their policies of a particularly party political nature to make sure that we have the reality of diffusion of power, and not lip-service to it.
Secondly, it is important that we place more democratic control on the processes of government, in which I include many of the statutory bodies. The complexity of modern government has led to a degree of centralisation that affects people throughout the United Kingdom. It is true that in Scotland we have achieved a high degree of administrative devolution. What must be realised is that a great deal of the devolution that has been achieved so far has been of an administrative nature. Although the House of Commons has ensured that there has been democratic control, that has not been seen to be the position in Scotland. Democratic control has not been exercised in the way in which people in Scotland genuinely aspire towards.

Mr. MacCormick: rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I believe that the Kilbrandon Report demonstrates that much of the devolution that has been achieved has not been understood by the people in Scotland. It is worth reminding the House of the attitude that was reflected in the survey carried out by the Kilbrandon Report. About 34 per cent. of those surveyed did not realise that a Scottish Office existed. Another 18 per cent. were in doubt about its existence and only 48 per cent. were fully aware of its existence—[Interruption.] Members of the Scottish National Party joke and treat these matters with levity, instead of facing the realities of the present situation. I am prepared to accept the realities and I ask them to do so as well. We must accept the reality that devolution in Scotland has not had the effect on the Scottish people that many of us would have wished. That is why I believe we are right to seek to make the devolving of power administratively more of a reality through further measures of devolution.

Mr. MacCormick: rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) has had plenty of time to speak and plenty of time to attend the debate. I have sat through nearly the whole of the debate and I have missed very few speeches. If the hon. Gentleman had done that I would have more respect for the kind of intervention that he is seeking to make. Until the Members of the Scottish National Party learn to behave in a democratic institution they can sit on their benches.
The next matter that concerns me in the improvement of government—I believe that that is the core of the debate—is the way in which, in recent years, we have been conducting Scottish business in the House. I question whether we have necessarily adopted the most effective way of doing so. Many hon. Members also have reservations, and I do not intend to go over them all tonight. The operations of the Scottish Grand Committee and Scottish Standing Committees are not fully understood by the people in Scotland. More important—this is a point that has not been made so far—is the fact that so many of us who genuinely take part in Scottish affairs in the House find that to a great extent we are hindered

from taking a wider part in the affairs of the United Kingdom.
If through this search to get better and more effective devolution we can at the same time improve the processes of Scottish legislation, not only will that be a worthwhile end in itself; at the same time it will release Scottish Members at Westminster to play a more effective rôle in the United Kingdom Parliament. Through seeking devolution in further ways we can not only achieve a better diffusion of power from the centre; at the same time we can introduce a more democratic control of the processes of government as they now exist. Further, we can make the rôle of the Scottish Member at Westminster more meaningful than it has been for a number of years.
I now return to another central theme of the debate—the unity and integrity of the United Kingdom. The debate has been useful in showing up those who believe in it and those who do not. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire referred to devolution as a continuing and ongoing process. All of us know the end of the road which the hon. Gentleman and his party seek—the break-up of the United Kingdom. The commentators in the media have not realised that devolution beyond a certain stage will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
To take one example, the Scottish Council Research Institute Report started with the premise that the unity and integrity of the United Kingdom should be maintained. In arguing for devolution the report came logically to the point of conflict between the Scottish Executive and that of the United Kingdom. In that case, the report said, the view of the Scottish Executive must prevail. That immediately shows the weakness of arguments which follow that road. If devolution goes too far one reaches that conclusion. What do the integrity and unity of the United Kingdom mean if on certain issues of United Kingdom importance the subsidiary part has the final decision?
In the debate on devolution as it continues I hope that those who pay lip-service to the unity of the United Kingdom will be honest with themselves and accept that there is a certain point beyond which it is dangerous to pass if that unity is not to be broken up once and for all.
Those who believe in separation may not be satisfied. But if we are complacent in believing that we have a solution, unless we define the limits the solution will blow up in our faces in the years ahead. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border was right in saying that this is a choice which must be spelt out clearly and uniquivocally. It is an issue which we cannot fudge, and we fudge it at our peril.
I say to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) that saying that there are certain limits beyond which we should not go is no excuse for doing nothing. Those who speak from that point of view are neither facing the political realities nor accepting the tremendous scope that exists for improving the machinery of government generally. I agree with the principle expressed by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire, but not with his conclusions. I hope that devolution is organic and continuing. We have administrative devolution and the time has come to take this step towards legislative devolution.
I refer to three major areas on which I hope the Secretary of State will comment. The first is finance, which is crucial. I favour what the Lord President said about the block grant. The expenditure approach is less likely to lead to difficulties than are some of the other methods suggested. The whole question of raising finance was gone into in relation to local government. We know the problems, and a clear-cut and well understood system will be best. We must take into account oil revenues. I say that not in the sense of greedily trying to claim everything that comes from oil revenues, because oil is a matter for the United Kingdom as a whole. Oil development in Scotland will involve increased expenditure. We must ensure that that expenditure takes place.
The nature of the Executive of the Assembly will require further discussion in the future. I have an open mind on this. I ask the Government not to close their mind to the idea of the committee system. I urge those who laugh and joke about that to refer to the

Kilbrandon Report at paragraphs 897–901, which form a considerable justification—with one reservation—of the benefits of that system. It is a system I have heard advocated within this House. It is a system which has motivated some hon. Members into trying to extend the Select Committee procedure. Members of a Scottish Assembly may feel a lack of participation in the same way as do many hon. Members in this House. If the committee system will import a degree of participation we should not reject it because of certain defects. One defect concerns the introduction of legislation. I hope that more work can be done on that issue.
I have no reservations about the devolution to the Assembly of those powers already devolved to the Secretary of State. It is right that the Secretary of State or the Assembly should have certain powers dealing with regional development, because this is not just a question of industry and jobs. It concerns roads, communications, houses, schools, and so on. More control over such matters should be vested in Scotland. Those who say that all of these powers should be devolved to Scotland should remember that in doing so we would be opting out of many of the benefits of United Kingdom development policy. Without such a policy, where would Ravenscraig, Bathgate or Linwood have been? I hope that in Scotland we shall be able to make our claim to mobile industry.
Those who argue for complete separation are opting out of such benefits. They are completely ignoring the benefits we have received through the industrial development certificate system. If we opt out of such a system it will be to the detriment of the livelihood of the people of Scotland.
Everyone realises that we are on the threshold of constitutional changes of monumental proportions. We must make those changes not simply to meet the emotions of nationalism but to achieve better government, not only in Scotland but throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. If we seek simply to satisfy political aspirations with measures which can never satisfy the appetites of those who seek total separation and the break-up of the United Kingdom, our endeavours are bound to fail.
This debate has shown that we cannot and must not treat the subject casually, with the kind of levity we have heard from those on the Scottish National Party bench. The views of hon. Members are strongly and deeply held, and I respect them. I hope that the Government will seriously consider what has been said. I know that they will do their best, through a White Paper on or in other ways, to deploy the arguments fully. I favour devolution to a Scottish Assembly, provided that the limits of devolution are recognised and clearly laid down. We cannot afford to create a muddle.

9.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): In most quarters of the House there has been an appreciation of the importance of this debate. I am not for one moment suggesting that this is the last of these debates.
What is a little disappointing about the debate is that some people seem to think that we should now begin to talk about the issues. It came as somewhat of a surprise to me that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), and indeed the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), should make those comments, bearing in mind that it was in the Queen's Speech in June 1970 that the then Conservative administration said that they would bring forward proposals for a Scottish Assembly. I would have thought that by now they had settled whether they were in favour of that idea and that they would give the House some idea of what it would involve. The Conservatives preceded the Royal Commission on the Constitution with a commission of their own chaired by Sir Alec Douglas-Home, as he then was. It is a little late to say that we must now start arguing right from the beginning.

Dr. Hampson: rose—

Mr. Ross: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have to wind up a two-day debate and I think I am entitled to a litle time in which to develop my thoughts.

Dr. Hampson: The Secretary of State made an inaccurate statement.

Mr. Ross: No, it is not inaccurate. The fact is that we have had the Kilbrandon Report since October 1973.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: This is the first debate we have had on it.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has some responsibility for that within his own party. We have instituted a debate within the country. What did people say who were interested in the subject? They said "We must have Kilbrandon". The word "Kilbrandon" was raised all over the country. I should like to think that as many people who raised that cry have now read the report.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said that to a certain extent the SNP in his considered view was irrelevant, and that is quite right. One thing that Kilbrandon showed, having gone into the matter for four years, was that only a small minority of people in Scotland and Wales favoured separation. It is exactly the same situation today. I should like to feel that those in Kilmarnock who voted for me voted for red-blooded Socialism, but if every member of the SNP thinks that every vote he received was registered by somebody who wanted separation, the SNP has a lot to learn.

Mr. Crawford: rose—

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should have been here yesterday. The fact is that there is no doubt that the people of Scotland are not yet persuaded that separation is what they want. The people of Scotland—Socialists, Conservatives and others—are just as proud of being British as they are of being Scottish. The Kilbrandon Report brought out that identity. The national identity of Scotland does not require the establishment of a nation State in order to preserve it.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom existed 100 years before the union of the Parliaments. We in Scotland, whether we calculate from 1603 or 1707, have not lost our sense of national identity, nor have we within Scotland lost our sense of identity in regard to the people of the Western Isles and their culture. I refer to the people of Shetland and Orkney and


their culture. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are different."] Of course they are different cultures. That is the whole point. Being part of one State does not mean that they lose that identity. I remember that in the war I was not in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force. I was in the HLI. We liked to keep our identity—even though a Tory Government later wiped us out.
I was in the Shetlands for some time during the war. One of the things I had to do during the war was to see the Home Guard in various parts of the country. I made the mistake of calling them "Scots". They were highly offended, and rightly so. It means that after all this time of union within Scotland they retain and are proud of their separate culture.
This is one of the things we have to watch in relation to the kind of exaggeration we get from the Scottish National Party. We can retain our identity, and we can play our part in what I consider is an essential political and economic union that gives strength to the whole country.
I know what hon. Members opposite will say. Perhaps an hon. Gentleman will quote Burns. I heard them muttering something about it yesterday. I wondered whether perhaps I should propose a toast to the Lassies tonight, in view of what has been happening outside. The mistake that hon. Gentlemen on those benches make is to believe that one has only to label something as Scottish and therefore it is wonderful. The hon. Lady, the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), in one of her many interventions last night, said we led the first industrial revolution. Where were the decisions made? They were made in Scotland. By whom were they made? By Scots. But what was the result for the Scottish people? The result was the tenements from which we have not even yet escaped, the huddling of our people in towns and all those horrors.
When hon. Gentlemen and the hon. Lady talk about Scottish oil, I would say that it is oil belonging to the people who own the companies—and it will, until they face up to the fact that profits come from ownership and are prepared to join with us making this the people's

oil. It was suggested that we were only making this devolution to please Willie. I wanted to know whether it was Willie Whitelaw, Willie Ross or Willie Hamilton, but I can assure the House that we are not doing this to appease the nationalists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that at least they are predictable. From this point of view one can never satisfy their appetite. When they tell me that they intend to co-operate with the Assembly when it is set up, irrespective of the power and irrespective of its financing, I must reply that I would like to see a little more co-operation in the debates in this House and different behaviour from that of the past few days and the past few minutes, behaviour which gives me little justification for considering that they are very serious about this matter.
We are concerned about a change in the machinery of government which, to my mind, will not conflict with the unity and political integrity of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made a very good speech. When he started talking about Pitt and Burke in the context of this place, I wondered whether what we were proposing would lead to the collapse of democracy. We are proud of Pitt and Burke and of their part in British history, but we did not have democracy at the time. I draw his attention to the fact that tomorrow the House will have its time devoted entirely to Scottish affairs. The Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Bill will be followed by the District Courts (Scotland) Bill. He is suggesting that taking these measures off the Floor of the House and dealing with them in Scotland in a Scottish Assembly would mean the collapse of this place.

Mr. Powell: rose—

Mr. Ross: Yes. I will give way.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The Secretary of State gives way to the right hon. Gentleman but not to us.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Tomorrow, should there be a Division, the English Members and maybe even the Northern Ireland Members will also vote. But in the event of these subjects being removed from this House to an Assembly alsewhere, that would be an impracticable relationship.

Mr. Ross: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has noticed what has been happening even over the past few years. When I came to his House, the Scottish Committee dealt with the Committee stage of every Bill, and it was made up by a sufficient number of added Members to retain the majority of the Government of the day. That is not the position today. There are no English Members on the Scottish Standing Committee—and a Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was still a supporter made that change. He should have been protesting about it. As a measure of interim devolution, I would like to see the Scottish Grand Committee restricted to Scottish Members of Parliament, with a membership proportionate to the parties. It would be an interesting exercise in parliamentary devolution in this place. The right hon. Gentleman overplayed his hand in this matter.
We have been told that we must do the same for Wales as for Scotland, but the histories of the two countries are entirely different. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales pointed out that it is 10 years since his office was created. It is 90 years since the office of Secretary of State for Scotland was created. We have had 90 years of change in this Parliament affecting the way in which Scottish business is dealt with. We got to the stage of having a Scottish Committee.

Mr. Crawford: And 100,000 unemployed.

Mr. Ross: We had more than that when the hon. Member was a Tory.

Mr. Crawford: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have never been a member of the Tory Party.

Mr. Ross: I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman had not even paid his dues.
It is 90 years since this Parliament passed an Act creating the office of Secretary of State for Scotland.
I certainly never expected to have such an honour imposed on me as that of carrying out a measure I have unceasingly denounced, fortunately only in private.
That is what the Duke of Richmond and Gordon said when he was offered the job by Lord Salisbury. He expressed his

gratitude and took on the job. Lord Salisbury was concerned that he should do so because he required the right man for the job. He thought that certain other people would be an insult to Scotland. He said that
the effulgence of two dukedoms and the best salmon river in Scotland will go a long way
to make him the right person for the job.
We are way beyond that kind of appreciation of what will satisfy Scotland today. Taking the changes that have been made in administrative devolution, since 1951 there have been changes in relation to transport in Scotland, a Countryside Commission, a Highlands and Islands Development Board and changes in relation to many aspects of Scottish administration. It becomes more and more difficult for the Scottish Minister properly to supervise those.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) asked what would happen to the Secretary of State. It was said that the problem of who would hold his position after the devolution of functions was enough to give anyone a coronary. That will not worry me, because after acting as Secretary of State for Scotland for nearly seven years I seem to be immune from that. Easing of these pressures will be one of the achievements of an Assembly dealing with some of those matters that are presently the concern of a Secretary of State for Scotland. Let no one underestimate what we have already decided in relation to education, housing and health, which are important aspects of the lives of Scottish people.
There are others who say that we must have this or that, and hon. Gentlemen nod their heads. However, we must not arrive at the point where we have difficulty in controlling the economy, and will strain the political unity of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) spoke about that today. He said that there was concern that Scotland and Wales are getting away with things. I think he is wrong. We have always been modest in our demands, although perhaps persuasive and successful.
There was a time when I was worried, when special development areas were created. It was right that they should


be created. This is what can be done when we control the whole of the United Kingdom from the economic point of view, being fair to all parts, and being flexible in relation to the aid given. The amounts allowed per job under the regional policy were higher in the more remote areas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), then President of the Board of Trade laid down our regional policies. Let us not think that in throwing that away we shall gain something for Scotland.
I should like to quote what was said by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) about the motor car industry and aluminium industry in Scotland.

Dr. Hampson: rose—

Mr. Ross: I shall not give way since I must deal quickly with some of the points raised in the few minutes left to me.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire asked a question about the location of the Assembly. I was asked whether I could make clear the thinking of the House of Commons on certain aspects. I was disappointed that many speakers gave no indication of what they felt. The location of the Assembly will be Edinburgh. On the basis of yesterday's announcement, the Scottish Assembly will initially meet in Edinburgh. Today we have, through the Property Services Agency, initiated local consultation by making a first approach to owners of certain existing buildings which might be suitable. Edinburgh Corporation are being asked about buildings in their possession and in particular about the buildings in Regent's Road, which were formerly occupied by the Royal High School and which now house the City Arts Centre. The Church of Scotland has been approached about the availability of any of its properties. Finally, officials have today written to the Governors of Donaldson's Trust about their building in west-central Edinburgh.

Mr. Galbraith: Talk about something decent.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) made a good speech. Unfortunately, he delivered it with his customary blimpish aggression,

with the result that the sound sense of it was lost.
I mention these approaches because we are not ignoring essential details which must be taken into account in relation to the culmination of our policy.
As for the government of the Assembly itself and whether it should be a committee or a ministerial system, we received some guidance from right hon. and hon. Members. But most of them ignored one important factor. In the Welsh Assembly it may be that the committee system will be better. But it is difficult in a Scottish sense for me to understand how it would be better in terms of the preparation of legislation. If we look at the major local authorities, where the committee system is in operation, we find that they tend to be controlled by caucuses and that they create their own ministers. It is important that this matter should be given further consideration, and I should like more advice from hon. Members about some of the essential details on which these decisions must be based.
As for the position of the Secretary of State and the number of Members, this is a matter to which I have no doubt hon. Members representing English constituencies will be turning their minds. It is very difficult to justify the continuation of 71 Members of Parliament and a Secretary of State. However, taking away even what is to be taken away from the Secretary of State, the result is a difference of only two Questions every three weeks. Bearing in mind all the other matters which will still touch the affairs of Scotland and which are of importance to Scotland, I think that the Government are right to say that there should be 71 Members of Parliament.
The functions of the Secretary of State have changed over the past 90 years. Even last week, announcements were made giving further powers and responsibilities to the Secretary of State. I remind the House that Scotland is affected by decisions which are made in relation to such matters as the Channel Tunnel or Maplin. Important decisions which apparently have nothing to do with Scotland can affect Scotland, and for that reason we must have a voice in the Cabinet.
We did not get very much advice from right hon. and hon. Members about


the number of Members for the Assembly. I was hoping to hear a little more about whether it was felt that the number should be 71 or 142. But I assure the House that we have gone past the stage of just talking about the principle. We accept the principle of the need in Wales and Scotland for meaningful Assemblies. We think that a Scottish Assembly will be to the benefit of the good government of the people of Scotland. We think that it will be acceptable to the people of Scotland, and we do not consider, judging from the advice which we have been given today, that this House wants to endanger the political and economic integrity of the United Kingdom. Apart

from one party in this House, the general feeling—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Western Isles spoke for the Scottish people yesterday, he spoke very badly—or perhaps I should say that he read very badly. He was prepared to look at passports, at Customs houses, and at all the paraphernalia of separation. The Scottish people reject that view.
We can retain our identity. We can retain it within the United Kingdom. I am sure that this will be the decision of the Scottish people in the future, as it has been in the recent past. Yet—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to Less Favoured Farming Areas and the Motion relating to Imports from Third Countries of Beef and Veal may each be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon.—[Mr. Coleman.]

EEC (FARMING AREAS)

10.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/27/75 but declines to approve any restriction on the subsidy payments to pensioners.
I propose to start by giving hon. Members a little background to the rather difficult documentation on this question and then to say a few words about the reasons which lead the Government to favour the proposal before the House.
The nine draft instruments which constitute the Commission's proposal under reference R27/75 will, when adopted by the EEC Council, bring into effect the less favoured areas directive which was adopted by the Council in January 1974. A text of that directive was placed in the Library of the House in December.
Hon. Members may recall that earlier drafts of this directive have been available to the House for some time. Indeed, in April 1973 I initiated a debate on this question from the Opposition benches on a motion for the Adjournment. Hon. Members also had the opportunity to question the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the progress of negotiations on that text on a number of occasions.
The first draft of the main directive was the subject of an explanatory memorandum to the House in April 1973. The text adopted in January 1974 differed from the original text in a number of respects and, I hope, benefited from the contributions made in this House on those earlier occasions.
The Commission's implementing proposal is in two parts. The first eight

draft directives delineate the geographical coverage of the less favoured areas in the eight member States applying the system—that is all except Denmark. The United Kingdom's submission regarding areas has been accepted by the Commission.
The ninth draft directive sets out the rate proposed for Community financing of these so-called compensatory allowances. They are, in fact, headage payments for animals on the lines of our hill cow and hill sheep subsidies. There is also a note on the financial implications for the Community. If the proposal is adopted in its present form FEOGA financing at a rate of 50 per cent. will be available towards member States' expenditure on headage payments from January this year. Community contribution towards special capital aids paid by member States has already been agreed at 25 per cent.
I turn now to the merits of the proposal. When, in April 1973, the House debated this issue, I said that I welcomed the directive for broadly three reasons—first, because it extended direct payments to producers and thus reduced pressure from community farmers for higher end prices; secondly, because it ended our fears regarding the future of our hill subsidies in the light of the Commission's then preoccupation with free competition policy; and, thirdly, because it represented an acknowledgment by the Community that the hill areas required special treatment in the context of the common agricultural policy.
All in all, the directive adopted last year and these implementing proposals can be said to do what I and many other hon. Members hoped that they would do.
Perhaps I can add that the reason why there has been a delay of about 12 months between adoption and implementation is that real change takes time, and new schemes have to be devised and set up in all the other member States of the Community in the 12 months interval. I should also like to commend to hon. Members the financial terms of the proposal, under which the Commission proposes to make a large fund available—160 million units of account, or some £65 million per annum—of which the United Kingdom stands to gain just under 30 per cent.
But my own support for the original draft directive was conditional on the details of its provisions. On the point of greatest concern to everyone in the agricultural industry, the definition of the areas eligible for special assistance, I am glad to say that we have achieved everything that we wanted. There are, however, three respects in which the directive hampers our freedom of action. One of these, the limitation of headage subsidy payments to farmers not in receipt of retirement pensions, is referred to in the motion. We do not see the logic of this limitation and hon. Members can take it that we are determined to ensure that it need not be applied in the United Kingdom.
Another limitation in the directive would restrict our freedom to run national grant schemes at preferential rates in the hills in addition to the scheme envisaged by the directive and there is also a provision which limits the amount of headage payment that a farmer can receive per hectare and could lead to some farmers receiving lower headage payments than at present. On both these points we intend to secure a measure of flexibility before the directive is put into effect.
So far as crofting is concerned, there are some grants currently payable to Scottish crofters that are not wholly covered by this directive. At the EEC Council of Ministers meeting in November 1973 the Minister of Agriculture in the last Conservative administration said that the United Kingdom could not regard the directive as affecting our right to continue the special investment aids to crofters under separate crofting legislation, and I can assure the House that this Government takes the same view.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Howell: We welcome these proposals. The history of this document is long, in European and British parliamentary terms. As the Minister said, he himself has worked hard to ensure that such proposals were adopted by the EEC. Indeed, no sooner had the Commission issued its draft than he initiated an Adjournment debate in the House. I am very glad that he is involved in the final stages of the debate.
It is also appropriate that we should be discussing hill farmers at this time, because no section of the community has suffered more than they in this exceptionally bad year. This measure will help to restore their confidence in part now that they know that these systems of aid will continue. One of the major fears of agriculture on our entry of the EEC was that our traditional national aids for hills and other less favoured areas would be disallowed under the CAP. For this reason, hill farming figured prominently in the Treaty of Accession.
The then Conservative Government secured in those negotiations a commitment by the Community to safeguards for our special aids to hill farmers, culminating in February 1973 when the Commission fulfilled that commitment with these first proposals. They were debated throughout the autumn by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers and the final text was agreed in November 1973, the document being adopted by the Council in January 1974. Since then the Government have guided the Commission to the position reached today. Both major parties can therefore take credit for what is a major change of direction in Community policy.
This directive is concrete evidence that the common agricultural policy is flexible and capable of accommodating national needs. Now as a result of the action of the last few years our own hill aids are assured and are built into the CAP in eight of the EEC countries. Of course, they would be available to Denmark as well. In addition, the FEOGA funds will bear 50 per cent. of the cost, so that Britain stands to gain a considerable amount. As a result of this measure between £20 million and £22 million will be saved for the British taxpayer.
It is appropriate to compliment our negotiators in the first instance, but we should also compliment our Commissioners in Brussels for the work they have done, and those Conservative and Liberal Members of both Houses of Parliament and the one independent Member who have been working in Strasbourg and Brussels to achieve their objective. It is unfortunate that the Labour Party cannot see fit to send anyone to that Parliament, but I hope that that situation will soon be remedied.
It is interesting to consider the extent to which this measure will help. The hill farming area of the United Kingdom represents a significant and highly important sector of our agricultural economy. Over one-third of the United Kingdom acreage—some 16 million acres—are affected. In Scotland and Wales hill farms form the majority of holdings. In all about 50,000 agricultural holdings stand to benefit from this measure.
I hope the Minister will clarify one or two points. Will he assure us that the hill land capital grant scheme, the hill cow and the hill sheep schemes and the winter keep subsidies will remain? I am interested, too, in the position of the over-65s. I fully support everything the Minister said and all that the Government are doing to ensure that there is no restriction there. I find it impossible to believe that an arrangement could be embodied in this measure to debar the over 65s from receiving help, and I hope that the Government succeed in ensuring that there will be no such division in this country. Is the area which is eligible precisely the same as the one we were operating for hill subsidies previously?
This measure will help to restore in part the confidence of the hill farmers at a time when that confidence is needed. In view of the bad year they have just suffered some measure of confidence must be restored to them. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I welcome these proposals.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Liberal Members welcome the draft directive, which will do a power of good to the sheep industry. The incentives from the Community will help our balance of payments in the years to come. We now realise the potential of our hill and marginal land. We import 54 per cent. of our meat requirements. I am sure that the new incentives will bring badly-needed stability back to the hill areas.
But I should like the Minister to clarify their impact on United Kingdom law. We do not yet have sheep regulations. The Explanatory Memorandum says that
our present Hill Cow and Hill Sheep Subsidy Schemes would require replacement by a regulation made under the European Communities Act".
Because we do not have sheep regulations in this country or within the Common

Market, I hope that it is not right to say that we shall eventually lose the guaranteed price system. I declare my interest, being Vice-Chairman of the British Wool Marketing Board. I hope that the board will not lose its statutory powers. Many farmers, unions and others in Britain believe that we should have sheep regulations. Others believe that we should not, and that we are doing much better as we are.
I should like clarification on those points, but I accept the draft directive, and I am sure that the majority of hill farmers also accept it.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I hope that speaking after ten o'clock, although I had to speak earlier in the day, will not act as a barrier to me when I wish to speak in the future.
Because I was involved in the devolution debate, I cannot say that I have read the long document before us with the necessary care. Therefore, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his brief explanation.
Far be it from me to look a gift horse in the mouth, particularly when debating an agricultural matter. I thank my hon. Friend for agreeing to add to the motion the rider
but declines to approve any restriction on the subsidy payments to pensioners.
I recall my hon. Friend raising this in an Adjournment debate. Indeed, I may have asked him to do so. The motion is a notable advance. We have had a painful experience over the past few months, in trying to debate other EEC directives and obtain the right response from the Government. It has given us little pleasure to have to divide the House at 11.30 p.m. on an issue on which we would have expected the Government, and more likely the Manifesto Group, to support us.
I am glad that the Government have recognised that one way forward is themselves to add the appropriate amendment to the take-note motion. I hope that this will continue. The stronger we can make the hands of our negotiating Ministers in Brussels, the better. They need that strength. Initiating such an amendment puts them into a stronger position, when it is backed by the House, as compared with their position when they have to go


against an adverse vote in the House. This is a useful advance.
Curiously enough, this is more important to England and Wales than to Scotland, because in spite of what Scottish National Party Members say, we frequently have separate legislation. One development which has taken place in Scotland which has not happened in England and Wales is that we have given security of tenure to the sons, daughters or widows of tenant farmers. That means that they will be safeguarded in the event of the farmer being a pensioner and wishing to pass on the succession. The difficulty in England is that succession is not always guaranteed. It is not just a question of the subsidy being necessary to keep an old man. The point is that when he might wish to give up work in England he cannot do so and he has to continue being an old man in farming for the purpose of keeping the tenancy of the farm.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Now that the hon. Gentleman has his right hon. and hon. Friends back in power will he wish to develop the same line of provision in the law in England and Wales that he has just referred to as prevailing in Scotland?

Mr. Buchan: I am sure that it is the subject of continual discussions at 3 Whitehall Place. Of that I am confident.
I hope that we shall receive the support of the Liberal Party on this issue. We have not always had its support on other Common Market matters. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells). I am not quite sure whether he did or did not want sheep regulations.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Yes.

Mr. Buchan: That does not answer my question.

Mr. Howells: There are no sheep regulations. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), there are no sheep regulations within the EEC.

Mr. Buchan: I know that. That is not an answer to the question which I put. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of having sheep regulations or is he not?

Mr. Howells: I am not in favour unless we can substitute something better than the statutory agreement which already exists in this country along with the support system.

Mr. Buchan: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not want sheep regulations?

Dr. Colin Phipps: An interesting informality is developing.

Mr. Howells: I have clearly stated my view.

Mr. Hamish Watt: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the present deficiency payment that applies to sheep has been an excellent system and that it should be allowed to continue?

Mr. Buchan: That is precisely the point to which I was leading. I could not help making a little detour in the direction of the Liberals, who have supported the Common Market for so long and with so much enthusiasm.
We are still in the position of having to defend aspects of the deficiency payments system which we have not yet unscrambled in the same way as for the beef system. Assurances on that point would be useful to underline the assurances that the Minister has already given us. The other assurance that we require is on the question whether each and every aspect of the existing subsidy is either to be continued or to be altered in a form that is not less beneficial to the hill sheep farmer.
There are certain difficulties in reading the regulations which are issued from Brussels. The present matter is a bit difficult even for a highly paid deficiency supporter sheep farmer to understand, and there are few of them. I shall refer to some of the definitions that are given concerning altitudes and other matters. The Explanatory Memorandum reads:
concerning the existence, by reason of altitude, of very difficult climatic conditions the result of which is a substantially shortened growing season, the Commission considers that such conditions occur at altitudes above 600–800 metres …
Clearly that is a figure that is largely irrelevant to Scotland.
A diligent urban Conservative Member felt that he had located a great excess of public expenditure when he discovered


that a farm receiving a hill grant was at zero level above the sea. I had to explain that in Scotland the badness of certain land could be considered in horizontal as well as vertical terms. We were dealing with the quality of land. These provisions are of little assistance to us. It might be useful if we disseminated the appropriate facts in Britain.
The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to deal with slopes. It reads:
concerning the slopes, since by their present mechanisation is not possible or necessitates the use of very expensive special machinery, the Commission is of the opinion that such slopes must be greater than 20 per cent. (average slope/square kilometre).
I must say that the traditional British approach of assessing land was much more sensible. Perhaps the Minister will comment if I am misreading the memorandum.
Consider the mathematical logic of this:
When the natural handicap resulting from one of the factors referred to in the above two indents is less severe, that which results from the other must be proportionately more acute in such a way that the sum of the two handicaps is not less than that resulting from each of the factors taken separately.
The average hill sheep farmer will be most uncertain about what he will get.
First, there must be comparison between our land and the conditions specified. Secondly, we need assurances about the existing subsidies. Thirdly, we shall fight if necessary to retain deficiency payments for sheep. Fourthly, we must make sure that the knowledge we gain can be properly disseminated through the whole farming community. It is not sufficient for us to take note. We must be assured that the Government have the means to ensure that the pension aspect will not only be covered by a motion in the House but will be fought for in Brussels. Given those assurances, I am in favour of taking note of the document.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I should like to follow the first point made by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), namely, the form of the motion which is before the House. It is a new form, at any rate it is a new form as moved by the Government, although I think the form was pre-

viously achieved as the result of the Government accepting an amendment which was proposed from the back benches. The material words are:
This House … declines to approve any restriction on the subsidy payments to pensioners.
As I understand, a year or so ago when the council adopted the directive in January 1974 it was stated in an earlier memorandum which was before us that compensatory allowances would not be extended to old-age pensioners. I am not clear whether the document which is before the House now excludes compensatory allowances.

Mr. Strang: indicated assent.

Mr. Powell: So we have before us an EEC document which excludes compensatory allowances for old-age pensioners and which will come before the Council not later than the end of February. We were told in the Explanatory Memorandum that the Government were still exploring the scope for flexibility on these issues, but the Government are now asking the House to end any question of flexibility by declining to approve the directive.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: indicated dissent.

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend is in some difficulty. The words are—
declines to approve any restriction".
and there is in the document such a restriction on subsidy payments to pensioners. The Government are inviting the House to direct them, in so far as the House can, not to agree in the Council of Ministers to the directive unless it has been amended. There has been no dissent from the Government Front Bench, so I take it that that is the position.
That takes us very far. The Government have not merely accepted but have volunteered that this House with a draft directive in front of it should give a direction to the Government on top of that. I presume that the Government, having moved the amendment, will if it is carried veto if necessary the adoption of a directive which contained the offensive material.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Would it not be even more satisfactory if, instead of merely presuming that the


Government could do that, they would assure us definitely that they would in the circumstances not accept the directive?

Mr. Powell: I assume that there is to be a reply by the Government, and at the moment I am working on the natural meaning of the document, the interpretation of it, and the form of the motion that the Government have invited the House to adopt.
This leads us very much further. I am sure that it is good of the Government to make this suggestion of their own motion. But when legislation of any kind is before the House, although we often have the advantage of amendments moved by the Government, who have had second thoughts or see ways in which that legislation can be improved, it is not entirely unknown for the House, or the Committee, by a majority to insist on amendments which have not originally occurred to the Government. It would therefore appear that, on the Government's own admission, it is within the power of the House in effect to amend draft directives and thereby ensure that directives are not agreed to which, in detail, do not accord with the wishes of the House.

Dr. Phipps: Is it not the case that Ministers going to the Council of Ministers are going in order to negotiate, and that what we are doing in this Chamber is to give them aid and direction in those negotiations—if necessary to give support but not to mandate them by passing amendments to "take note" motions?

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman has seen the difficulty but he has not escaped from it. He used a pair of what were not synonyms. He said, "aid and direction". It is one thing to aid the Government with general expressions of sentiment, perhaps of the sentiments the hon. Gentleman referred to, but it is another matter to direct them. We should be clear that, when the Government advise the House to accept a motion in which it "declines to approve", they are not saying, "It would be quite a help if you pass this motion, but if we are in a tight place we nevertheless shall accept it without that amendment". Surely the meaning is that the Government are saying to the House, "We promise you that we are

not going to accept this directive unless it has been amended in this way, and in faith of that we are inviting you to decline to approve any such restriction".
The Government are holding out their hands for the handcuffs to be put on by the House. They have designed the handcuffs and have come along this evening holding out their wrists. So they themselves wish that their powers of negotiation, their scope for negotiation, should be limited. That is gratifying, but there may be circumstances in which the Government do not want their scope for negotiation to be limited, but in which this House does, and in future it will not be possible for the Government to say that, because the Council is a negotiating body, because Ministers go to the Council to agree with their fellow Council members, therefore this House cannot take detailed decisions on amendments to the draft. That is all finished now because all the business about negotiating and having a negotiating position has gone.
True, the Government are no doubt inviting us to enshrine their negotiating position in a motion of this House, but if they are to say, "You can only enshrine our negotiating position", they are asserting the superiority of the executive here over this House.
An extremely important event has occurred at the presentation of this motion. We have escaped, apparently, from what seemed to be the old position—that, because the Minister, when he went to the Council of Ministers, was going to be a member of a negotiating team, he could not prejudice his position in advance and therefore the House could not lay down binding requirements. It seemed to us, therefore, that we had our control over the executive to that extent restricted. That was always the argument.
Now we have been told that it is perfectly all right for a Minister to go to the Council of Ministers with, behind him, a specific direction from this House not to agree unless a certain amendment is made. I believe that this is something which can now be developed a great deal further. There is at present a Select Committee of this House on the procedure for dealing with EEC delegated legislation. I hope that the Committee will be able to take account of our experience this evening.
We are much indebted to the Government. Hon. Members who study these matters carefully would have detected these disadvantages in the directives and would have brought them to notice, but it is not good enough to leave it to chance. As it is law which will be binding in this country and as these are regulations under which our agriculture is to be conducted, we must find some way in which some examination can be given to the text of EEC law as to the text of United Kingdom law, since we now know that there is the same opportunity for amendment of EEC law in advance as a condition of its being accepted as there is for amendment of United Kingdom law.
We have broken down the fictitious barrier raised between the responsibility of Ministers in this House in respect of United Kingdom legislation and their allegedly much more muted responsibility in the case of Community legislation. We see what important consequences can sometimes follow in the broadening of parliamentary liberties from an apparently local and limited matter such as hill farming subsidies and the EEC directive.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. John Roper: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) touched on an important element in this debate—namely the fact that as well as studying the instrument, it is also appropriate for us tonight to study the form of that instrument. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman is of considerable importance in the consideration of secondary legislation.
Going back to debates held in this House over a number of years, I believe it is true to say that this is not the first time this House has given a specific directive or binding view to Ministers going to Brussels. Under a Conservative Government, both in the case of lorries and in respect of a motion moved by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on the age for driving licences, this House gave directives to Ministers who were about to negotiate and expressed its view that the will of this House was to be taken into account by those Ministers.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, but the difference in this

case is that those were expressions of opinion by the House in form of its own motion, whereas this is expressly a limitation on the power to accede to a directive which at the moment is before the House.

Mr. Roper: My understanding is that in both cases they were statements by the House of what its opinion was in regard to a particular directive which was to come before the Council of Ministers in the near future. Although it is of interest that this is the first time that there has been a Government motion in this form, it is not the first time that the House has been able to vote in this way. Therefore, although there is some precedent, the precedent is perhaps not quite as great as the right hon. Gentleman was trying to suggest in his remarks which, as always, were of interest. Ministers who go to the Council of Ministers will still go to negotiate the situation. In those negotiations it is possible that they may have to accede to something, as they might have done on previous occasions when the House has expressed a view which was not in keeping with a resolution that was before it.
The view which has been taken before, and which still stands today, is that if the Government go on doing that, they will lose the confidence of this House. The House has always been free to express its views on Community instruments and it is important that we should continue to be so. I do not necessarily think that debates at ten o'clock are the best way of doing this, but that is a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure. I hope that we shall find a better way of doing it.
We must find a way in which the House can express its views, not only in general terms, but in detail, so as to give advice to Ministers. It would be a mistake to go further, as the right hon. Gentleman tried to do, and to say that we should shackle Ministers. They will, for the time being, have power to give their agreement in the Council of Ministers. If the House passes a series of motions concerning a list of directives and Ministers continue to return to the House having disregarded those resolutions, it will be appropriate for a motion of censure to be tabled.
When the Government lose the confidence of this House because they have not


acted in accordance with its general wishes and cannot explain why they believed that it would have been against the best interests of the British people to have done otherwise, they will have to take the consequences of the motion of censure.

Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend will remember that the Foster Report, on which our procedure in these matters is largely based, went further and said that it was inconceivable that any Government could disregard a resolution of this House. That was accepted at the time by both Front Benches and it seems to be clearly implicit that if a specific vote of this kind were taken the Government could not disregard it, whatever happened in Brussels.

Mr. Roper: My right hon. Friend has taken the view expressed by the Foster Committee. I was attempting to argue that it would be inconceivable for any Government to continue to disregard the view of this House, expressed in a resolution, unless they could explain that, in the whole negotiating framework of the Community, they had acted in the best interests of this country and overridden a resolution of the House. That was the position before today and I believe that it is the position today.
There is a certain amount of innovation here because the Government have tabled this take-note motion with a rider. This is probably the first time in the annals of the House that this has been done, so it is a rather important innovation. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman so eloquently argued, I do not believe that there has been quite the constitutional innovation he thinks.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome this document, which will bring to our uplands and highlands a sense of confidence in the future. Many farmers in these areas have been unhappy about their future. This will restore their confidence and we will get from the uplands and the hills the store cattle we need. This is one of the aims of this type of subsidy.
I hope that the House will note that it is not only a question of seeing that there is a supply of store cattle. These grants are social aids directed—just as

was our hill cow subsidy—to ensuring that people remain in these areas. We do not want to see these areas depopulated, which could easily happen if there were no subsidies to help the people living there. Therefore, I welcome that proposal.
I am concerned about the coverage. A considerable amount of land which is less favoured or with specific handicaps will qualify for subsidies. In the Holsworthy district there is a vast area of poor clay land which is wet and full of rushes. The owners of that land will not receive the aid that is required. Help of this nature should be given in less favoured areas which have specific handicaps. Indeed, in some hill areas there are better soil conditions than in the areas I have mentioned.
I am unhappy about the headage payments. The majority of farmers are capable, and upright, in ensuring that they have only enough stock to cover their land. Headage payments tend to encourage the keeping of more cattle than necessary. During a winter such as the present, headage payments mean that more cattle are kept than the land can support. Perhaps the Government will look at other ways of giving subsidies.
The document stresses the need for flexibility. That is right. I hope that the Minister will look at the problems and be flexible in his plans and policies to deal with them. We do not want a blanket-type of subsidy. The subsidy must be of a flexible type. There should not only be a headage payment, or another method of dealing with stock, but help should be given with fencing, fertilisers and the improvement of land. That is where the nation will benefit.
When I farmed a hill cow area I improved the land so much that the Minister of Agriculture inspector told me that I no longer qualified for the subsidy. I asked him what he expected me to do with these subsidies, and whether I should buy a fur coat for my wife. He could not answer. Land should be improved so that its stock-carrying capacity can be increased to the benefit of the country.
I have a very great interest in Northern Ireland. When I was Minister in charge of agriculture there I fought hard to


ensure that the western areas, and not only the hill cow areas, of Northern Ireland came within the scope of subsidies. The Government of Eire gives an almost blanket coverage to all the areas bordering on Fermanagh and similar areas. Great trouble will be caused if the farmers on the Eire side of the border receive subsidies while those on the Northern Ireland side, apart from the hill cow farmers, do not.
I fought very hard, and I did not get an answer. I hope that the present Socialist Ministers are more successful than I was, because it is very important to Northern Ireland to see that that matter is covered.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies will not object to my mentioning it. It is a very important point.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) has brought us back to the realities of agriculture. It may surprise some hon. Members to hear that I wish to address my remarks mainly to those realities, although I have to express my agreement with the comments of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
Everyone in this House agrees with national or international support for agriculture in some form or other. I happen to believe that national support is superior, simply because it can do all that the hon. Member for Devon, West wants. It can be directed expressly to the needs of an area, and the directing body—in this case, this House—can debate, decide and call to account the Minister responsible for that direction. We have all been happy with that to date. Unfortunately, that will be the case no longer. Instead of the man from Whitehall telling the hon. Member for Devon, West that he is phased out, in future it will be the man from Brussels. It is clear from the very nature of the document that that will be so.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the list of areas qualifying in this respect has been drawn up by the member countries as individual countries, and not by any nameless person sitting in Brussels?

Mr. Spearing: I agree that that is so at the moment. But, as I develop my remarks, it may be that the hon. Gentleman will see that there is some point to what I am saying.
No one will disagree that the French system of support for agriculture, known as Mélanism, is popular in France. It would be with me if I were a Frenchman. I understand why it is. We have our own traditional supports for hill farmers and, speaking as a town constituent Member, I believe that we should support them.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) said that this proposal would be an encouragement to them. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) was with us when we debated the North Pennines Development Board, which was dismantled in precipitate haste by his Government. That was not the best way to encourage the proper development of hill farming areas which he now advocates.
That is the key to this debate. Although we agree with the principle, we disagree about the manner in which it is to be applied. In this document, we are changing a national system of support to an international system, and I fear that payments of the kind for which the hon. Member for Devon, West was asking, in respect of fencing and possibly in respect of drainage and other matters, may not be available under this new method. Instead, we shall have what the hon. Gentleman did not want, which is a blanket set of regulations to cover all social and agricultural conditions from Sicily to the Shetlands. That is a geographical fact which cannot be gainsaid.

Dr. Phipps: For the benefit of our colleagues in the Scottish National Party, can my hon. Friend say how he would answer them if they put the same question but substituted the words "United Kingdom" and "EEC" with the words "Scotland" and "England"?

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend's geography is not as good as his initial thinking. Although there are differences between the Shetlands and Cornwall, it is generally true to say that in the British Isles they run from east to west rather than from north to south—[Laughter.] Hon. Members who laugh are not aware of the agricultural characteristics of the


United Kingdom. That is generally correct.
What is more, although there will always be differences, whatever area we have for support, the smaller the area in which we apply any one system, the more it can be applied to the needs of the area concerned.

Mr. Roper: My hon. Friend has read draft directive No. R/27/25. There are eight draft directives, each dealing with different member countries of the Community. He will have seen the point which was made earlier about these matters varying from country to country. Therefore, to suggest that there is one scheme covering the whole Community is to mislead the House.

Mr. Spearing: I have read this document with great care, as my hon. Friend will realise when I proceed further.
It is true that each member State delineates the areas concerned—there are difficulties here—but it does not determine the grants and criteria within those areas. Therefore, while the areas are determined by each member State, the criteria on which those areas are determined are not. They are common. Indeed, the grants and aid available are also on an international basis. Therefore, my hon. Friend is only half correct.
The criteria which the document takes are matters of altitude, slope, percentage of national output of agriculture compared with other areas and the proportion of the population engaged in agriculture. Anybody comparing the situation with, say, Italy and Scotland will have considerable difficulty in making sure that the areas are of comparable need. This is a horrifying prospect for anybody who wishes to ensure some kind of equable treatment across the whole of the area.
The Commission points out some of the deficiencies in the areas suggested by France and Italy and says that, nevertheless, it is expedient to make some kind of recommendation. That immediately demonstrates the hideous difficulties which would be encountered in making some sort of comparability.
Another difficulty arises when dealing with matters such as the percentage of national output of agriculture or the proportion of the population engaged in

agriculture. At the moment it is a proportion of the national output. If the Common Market is to try to produce equable economic conditions over the whole, how long will it be before the criteria will be related not to national output but to the agricultural output of and the averages for the Community? As I see it, the whole idea of the Common Market would inevitably lead to that at some future date.
I turn now to the Financial Annex. I want to take a European rather than the nationalistic view which I detected in some of the speeches by hon. Members who supported this proposal rather more fulsomely than I believe it merits.
I notice that France has a total of 3·3 million hectares and is to receive 60 million units of account. The United Kingdom has 7·6 million hectares and is to receive 96 million units of account. It may be that that figure takes account of the high proportions of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales which come within these criteria. This may be a fair and objective assessment of the relative needs of the United Kingdom and France, but bearing in mind the Massif Central and areas of alpine agriculture in France, I wonder whether the French Ministry of Agriculture would agree with that assessment. It has so far, but there may be difficulties in future. That point has not so far been mentioned.
The total shown in the Financial Annex approximates to 900 million units of account per annum. The Parliamentary Secretary did not deal with the total global figure when he introduced the document, but somewhat broadly and quickly dealt with what he thought would be the total advantage to this country.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North said that 50,000 holdings would be affected. If that is correct, I think that £1,000 per holding per year in the areas concerned is not as high as some people had hoped. I hope that the Minister will give us some estimate of the figure that we might expect—at least, the median figure—for each holding, so that the confidence which hon. Members think that this document will provide will in fact be created. Without such figures the House can hardly welcome this document. I say this using the figures of 900 million units of account. One


hon. Member mentioned £20 million, which is somewhat less.
Perhaps my hon. Friend can also tell us what sort of comparable support our hill areas get from our own domestic system. It is no use welcoming a change like this without knowing how the financial aspects will develop from the existing arrangements. I am including now not just the subsidies for a hill area but other subsidies for drainage, fencing and other specific matters which the Minister might provide and which might not now be available in the Common Market. Would the Minister confirm that the specific grants that the hon. Member for Devon, West asked about will not now be available? If they are, will the money be provided by the Community?
For all these reasons, I cannot give this document the wholehearted welcome that other hon. Members have given. There are aspects which will cause difficulty because of the varying nature of farming and the social systems over which a single support system will operate. I believe that, as time goes on, criteria common to the Common Market will provide, through the comparability discussions which must take place, an even more generalised and blanket style of bureaucratic operation of this scheme than we might have had were it confined to the United Kingdom.

11.3 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The Minister has admitted that we are taking note of a document which restricts subsidy payments to pensioners, yet he has asked us to decline to approve such a restriction. It seems that we are opening the doors tonight—to many of us, who are opposed to our membership of the EEC, they are very welcome doors—to Committee stage discussions of these various directives. Will anything now prevent hon. Members from tabling amendments to draft directives, refusing to approve various provisions?
I hope that the Government are not playing with the House or saying, in effect, "Strengthen our hand, but if we

are in difficulty we shall have to concede." Surely they are acting in good faith and want it on record that the House will not accept this provision. If the Council of Ministers does not heed our decision, and brings in this restriction on the payment of the subsidy regardless, what will the Government do? Will they say: "We have taken our stand. On our invitation, Parliament has declined to approve this provision."? Will the Government merely ask the House for powers to strengthen their hand in the negotiations, and when they find that they cannot carry the day at Brussels, come back to Westminster and admit that fact? The Government must tell us whether that will be their attitude to other draft directives which will come before the House.
I welcome that the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) still retains his love for Northern Ireland. I hope that he will continue to express his view about those things he feels are best for Northern Ireland, drawing on his experience as a former Minister responsible for Northern Ireland agriculture. Page 31 of the document bears out what the hon. Member was saying. The list of counties there includes all the counties, not only the areas which are hill country. They are listed there and they include Donegal, Monaghan, Sligo, Mayo, Galway, Roscommon, Clare, Kerry and so on. Of course the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) could rhyme those names off without reading them.
It is now quite evident from the document that the Government of the Republic do not act according to the same criteria as that used by the United Kingdom. There is a careful selection of counties in Northern Ireland. The whole of Fermanagh, Tyrone and North Antrim are not mentioned. The hon. Member for Belfast, West comes to North Antrim to breathe good fresh air at times and to play the mouth organ. He is certainly better employed playing the mouth organ than speaking in this House.

Dr. Phipps: May I interject some specialist knowledge here? Is it not a fact that these definitions are geological and petrological rather than geomorphological? Am I not correct in my understanding that Southern Ireland is a bog?

Rev. Ian Paisley: In my country we would say that that was balderdash.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I can assure the hon. Member for Antrim North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) used parliamentary language.

Rev. Ian Paisley: So that may be, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but with all respect to you there are many things expressed in parliamentary language which are still balderdash.
It is unfair for the farming community north of the border to be denied the subsidy while its counterparts south of the border are able to claim it. Why is it that cattle can be brought across the border, go through the process of a sale in Northern Ireland, claiming the subsidy, and then be taken back across the border and claim the subsidy in the South as well? I have checked on this with the Northern Ireland Ministry of Agriculture and I have been told that 8 per cent. of cattle being sold in the ring at Omagh market have gone through this process.
It has jumped from 2 per cent. to 8 per cent. in past weeks. Farmers in the North are being put at an even greater disadvantage. What steps does the Minister intend to take on this important matter?

11.10 p.m.

Dr. Colin Phipps: As a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, I congratulate the two Front Bench spokesmen on taking only 12 minutes to open this 90-minute debate. That is a great improvement on the previous debate of this kind, giving us much more opportunity to discuss the issues.
The agricultural issues raised tonight are not major, but the issue first raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is. It is a pity that only two members of the Select Committee are present, because that issue is of extreme importance to future debates on European subordinate legislation.
When I joined the Select Committee as a Member of only 11 months' standing, I asked the Chairman what would be the effect of voting not to take note on a take-note motion. If we do so after a

debate lasting for an hour and half, does that debate not exist? I did not receive a satisfactory answer. Tonight we have an amendment to such a motion, so we are not merely not taking note but are introducing an amendment that we shall not take note of something that is within the whole sphere of the take-note motion.

Mr. Buchan: That is precisely the point of the discussion tonight. It is not an amendment. It is part of the motion which the Government have tabled. That is a vital point.

Dr. Phipps: I accept that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I was about to come on to the difficulty raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), that we could get ourselves into the unsatisfactory position of having take-note motions on European legislation which were open to a series of amendments. I was tempted earlier tonight to vote against the motion on the grounds that it was an unsatisfactory precedent for the House.
My hon. Friend the Minister has to go to the Council of Ministers in Brussels to negotiate with other Ministers a policy for the EEC, and particularly one referring specifically to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend will agree that we are not discussing United Kingdom legislation, and we can hardly just take note of legislation. What he is therefore saying is that the House cannot instruct any Minister on a particular ground to dissent from any of the regulations or directives.

Dr. Phipps: I am not saying that. Of course, we can advise a Minister, direct a Minister by a vote in the House, that we would prefer legislation within the EEC to be of a certain form. But we cannot tell him "You will go to Brussels and we as members of the EEC will adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude." If the requirement of the House is not acceptable there, he cannot say "That's it, boys. I have the ball. We are no longer going to play football. I am taking my ball home."
The House must take a decision as to the reality of our membership of the Community. If we are coming out, what has been said is absolutely right. If we


are to continue to be a member we shall always be in the position of having to arrive with other members at a satisfactory and suitable arrangement on a whole host of issues. There is no way in which the House can say to a Minister "You will go to Brussels and you will not budget from this position."

Mr. Buchan: At the moment the position is precisely the reverse. The Minister is saying that to the House, not the House to the Minister. It is part of the governmental commitment that the Minister who goes to Brussels will not accept a decision unless it meets certain conditions.

Dr. Phipps: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is the point that I made initially. That is why I believe that this form of amendment by the Government to a take-note motion is an extremely bad precedent for the House. It is something that we should not follow. I do not believe that we should put ourselves into the position of sending a Minister to Brussels who is unable to negotiate if we are to remain a member of the Community. If we are creating precedents which will remain in force if we decide to remain in the Community following a referendum it is most important that we should consider the precedents that we are creating and ensure that they do not shackle Ministers in negotiations in Europe, where they will, I hope and trust, be negotiating for the full benefit of the British people.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: As we reach almost the end of the debate there is not time for me to say anything except that it is particularly disappointing that Members who wish to talk about procedure should prevent those who have an interest in farming from taking part.
I have a particular interest in Scottish hill farming. As a result of the time that has been taken in dealing with procedure it has not been possible for me to talk about it tonight.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hicks: The importance of hill farming both as an essential component part of the pattern of agricultural production in the United Kingdom and as a contributor to local economies in rural areas where other forms of economic activity are often

limited cannot be over-emphasised. It is for those two reasons that the House must carefully consider the implications for our hill areas that are contained in the proposals before us.
We would like to take the opportunity of clarifying a few matters as to regarding the effect of the proposals on our hill farmers. The first matter concerns the determination of the less favoured areas and those areas with special handicaps. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) mentioned the fact that determination was based on certain criteria which are not homogeneous throughout the whole of the Community of Eight but which are drawn up to take account of local situations. The initial list has been drawn up by our Ministry and has been accepted by the Commission in Brussels. We would welcome an assurance from the Minister that this degree of flexibility will continue so that if at some future stage we feel that the areas need modifying or extending we shall be in a position to make the necessary recommendations.
The second query relates to compensatory or headage payments. We have seen difficulties being faced by our hill farmers partly as a consequence of their over-stocking. That in part is due to the fact that the present form of assistance is based on a headage payment alone. Whether or not we are members of the Community there are many who feel that we should move away from a purely headage payment to one which includes an element of quality or some other characteristic, and we should welcome an indication of the Government's thinking.
We should like to know whether there is any limit on the maximum amount an individual moorland farmer is permitted to receive under the proposals providing that his stocking ratios satisfy the necessary criteria. Perhaps the Minister will say how the suggested stocking ratios compare with those used by his Department in determining the number of animals eligible for the hill cow subsidy.
We should welcome clarification of how these schemes fit in with the existing methods of improving upland farms, for example, the capital grant scheme for modernisation of buildings, land drainage,


land reclamation and the rest. Clarification of the relationship between the draft proposal and the proposals outlined in the EEC directive 72/159 on the subject of farm development and modernisation would be helpful to the House.
The Opposition welcome the assistance to be given to our hill areas, in part from Community funds. This help is a clear indication that the common agricultural policy is not a sacred cow but can be adapted to meet individual national interests. We hope that the assistance will help to restore much needed confidence to our hill farmers.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Strang: We have had an interesting debate in which a record number of speakers have taken part. I start with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and amplified by others, including my hon. Friends the Members for Farnworth (Mr. Roper), Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and Dudley, West (Mr. Phipps). The right hon. Member for Down, South is right in saying that on this occasion the Government are going one step further than simply accepting an amendment tabled by hon. Members. But the difference between the Government accepting an amendment tabled by hon. Members and the Government volunteering this qualification in the motion is not so substantial. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the bulk of what he said would apply equally to this occasion as to the occasion when we debated sugar.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed almost to regard the regulations as regulations which would automatically become law in this country. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises, we are talking about a directive which will be applied in this country through the existing legislation for the payment of hill cow and hill sheep subsidies. What we are saying, and what we are volunteering in this motion, is that although we ask the House to take note of the directive we do not intend, in practice, to put a restriction on payments to pensioners. That means concluding a successful understanding with our partners in Brussels, and I think it has to be accepted—this is the essence of the Community,

as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West said—that in all these debates we are talking about a situation in which the Government are going forward to negotiate on the basis of certain Commission proposals.
Rather than wait until hon. Members table an amendment or raise a particular issue, we are here taking the initiative and saying in advance that we recognise that this is a matter of serious concern to us and it is not our intention, in practice, to limit payments to pensioners.

Mr. Jay: I presume that my hon. Friend accepts the decision taken by the House when it accepted the Foster Report and also the proposition that the Government should not disregard a resolution of the House on one of these instruments.

Mr. Strang: I accept that the Government cannot treat the House lightly and disregard its decisions or resolutions.
May I now deal with some of the agricultural points that have been raised. I thank the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) for his kind opening remarks. I can tell him that the hill cow and hill sheep subsidies, which include the headage payment, and the winter keep element will remain, subject to what I have said about the problem of a possible limitation with regard to the intensity of stocking.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) raised the matter of stocking. This is the basis of one of our reservations to which I referred in my opening speech. It is one of the matters that we must get settled, because it is conceivable that, under the criteria laid down, a few farms might find that their stocking intensity is such, particularly where they are running sheep and cattle together, that they reach the upper limit payable on an acreage or hectare basis.
As regards the areas covered, I can tell the House that the Commission has accepted those areas to which we now pay subsidies.
No final decision has been taken about the legislative position, but we intend to use our present hill farm legislation to implement the directive by means of an order or orders made under existing parent legislation.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) raised the specific issue of the directive's relationship to sheep. As he knows, there is no EEC sheep meat regulation. At the moment, the directive will have no effect on this matter, nor on the arrangement for wool. Indeed, wool is regarded as an industrial commodity in the EEC, and if ever a sheep meat regulation is introduced it will not deal with wool which is outside the CAP.
I am sure hon. Members will accept that we have had a useful debate and will agree to take note of this document, subject to the qualification in the motion.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. John Ellis were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/27/75 but declines to approve any restriction on the subsidy payments to pensioners.

EEC (BEEF AND VEAL IMPORTS)

11.32 p.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/82/75.
We turn now to the Commission's proposal for the revised import arrangements for beef and veal. These are set out in the document, about which an Explanatory Memorandum has been submitted to the House.
At the moment, the Community is operating a ban on imports of meat apart from the quantities allowed under the GATT quota, and it is also considering the internal beef régime as part of the annual price discussions. The new proposals on the beef import régime are associated with proposals for the internal régime and are also to be seen as paving the way for the removal of the ban in due course.
The proposal described in the document mainly concerns a revision of the system of duties and levies which Com-

munity countries apply to imports of beef from non-Community countries. The major part of the document is taken up with the description of a proposed new method of calculating the import levy. In addition, some changes are proposed in certain special arrangements which the Community applies to particular categories of imports.
It would be helpful to the House if I were to describe the import arrangements for beef which are in force at present. Two main mechanisms apply, with slight modifications in the United Kingdom and Ireland, during the transitional period. First, there are duties, charged at different rates for live animals and carcase meat, and calculated on an ad valorem basis. Secondly, there are variable levies intended to make up the difference, if any, between the duty-paid price of third country imports and the guide price for the product concerned. The variable levies are reduced by stages when the representative price, which is the average market price of cattle on Community markets, is above the guide price, and when the representative price is above a certain level the variable levies are suspended altogether.
I should like to say a little about how the Commission's proposal differs from the present system. The Commission proposes to maintain this two-part system of import charges, an ad valorem duty on the one hand, and a variable levy on the other. Moreover, it is not proposing any change in the method of charging the duty. This would continue to be calculated in the same way as at present.
But the method of calculating the levy would be changed in the following ways. Instead of the basic rate of levy being settled every week for live cattle and fresh or chilled beef, and once a month for frozen beef, and being liable to change with that frequency, a basic rate of levy would be calculated only once every three months. This would be determined according to the difference between the Community guide price and the most favourable offer prices in third countries. The basic rate of levy determined in this way would then be open to some variation according to the level of prices on Community markets. I shall not at this time of night detail the mechanism so fully described in Article 12 of the document.
I should like to say something about the reasons for the change. The reasons for these changes in the levy system are twofold. First, by making provision for some increase in the import charges when Community prices are low, the Commission clearly hopes to reduce the risk that the Community will need to have recourse in the future to a total ban on imports. We have all seen the effects of such a ban over the past six months. It would certainly be desirable to avoid similar disruptive measures in the future, if alternative methods can be found of giving reasonable protection to our own producers—and this is a most important matter.
The second reason for the changes is to make the system more predictable, by maintaining a basic rate of levy in force for a longer period and thus helping importers to plan ahead with a reasonable degree of certainty as to the level of charge which their imports will have to face. This too is a sensible objective. We all know that the industry has asked for longer-term assurances, and these changes should help in that direction.
I wish to say a few words about the Commission's proposals. In the Government's view, the EEC Commission is right to be considering changes in the import régime for beef. The present system has not proved adaptable enough to cope with the strains of a difficult market situation, particularly over the past few months. These changes in import arrangements should be seen alongside the current comprehensive discussions on the beef régime.
I should emphasise that they would be an important adjunct to the reforms we are wanting to see in the internal régime if they made it possible for the Community to conduct a more stable trading policy with third countries in the future. In particular, we should be aiming for changes which make it possible for the present suspension of the issue of import licences to be lifted as soon as possible.
Finally, we feel that, seen against this background, the Commission's proposals are constructive and certainly merit much closer examination. We should examine in detail how they compare with the system at present in force. We shall aim to temper the more restrictive aspects of the proposals, and ensure that the in-

crease of levies in times of low market prices should not be so high as to be prohibitive. These will be matters for negotiation in the Council of Ministers. We shall be concerned, too, to ensure that, once agreement has been reached on the new arrangements, the present restrictions on imports are lifted at an early date. These will be our objectives in the Community discussions which will take place in the next few weeks.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: While I appreciate the practical improvements that may come in the three-month period, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is saying that, although imports as they are at the moment should be lifted, the effect of this document would be that the reduced levies would be generally higher rather than lower, to prevent the imports that might occur if we retained the old system?

Mr. Bishop: I had almost finished my remarks. The point is that the levies will fluctuate according to market conditions. There would be a built-in mechanism which would give a level of stability. The three-month period will give a long-term assurance which will be better than the present arrangement. I commend the document to the House.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Howell: We on the Conservative benches welcome the opportunity to discuss this consultative document. We welcome anything which will help stabilise the beef market, which has been through such difficult times in the past year or 18 months. As far as I am aware this is the first time that the House has had the opportunity to discuss an EEC document before any action has been taken in any other EEC institution. This is to be welcomed.
We are, therefore, debating not a matter which has been decided but the first basic suggestion put forward by the Commission on the subject of the import arrangements for beef and veal from third countries. We shall thus be able to influence the future drafting of the document. This debate involves the levels of customs duties and the levy system to be imposed on such imports.
Under the present EEC system it is a fundamental part of the common agricultural policy that the level of imports is controlled. All Governments recognise


the need for agricultural management to protect producers in some way. Farmers worldwide are weak sellers. It is in the interests of the producer and the consumer that this should happen and that the producer should be protected from the extremities of fluctuating supplies. This protection is afforded either through mechanism to maintain market prices, which gives producers the incentive to produce by removing a temporary surplus, through intervention buying in the case of the EEC, or by maintaining producer returns by guaranteed prices while allowing market prices to fall until any surplus is absorbed. This is the way in which the United Kingdom operated prior to our entry to the EEC. I do not believe that either system is satisfactory and I hope to say a few words about some of my suggestions. If the first method of market support is operated, the level of imports must be linked to the internal market situation. This is what this document does.
The EEC beef market was under considerable pressure during 1974. The United Kingdom beef market suffered more than that of any of the other EEC member States because of mistakes made by both the Conservative and Labour Governments in the autumn of 1973 and because of the Government's decision to dispense with any kind of guarantee system. I hope that the Government have learned a lesson from that. There is evidence that they realise what a serious mistake they made and that they intend to ensure that it is not repeated. As a result of those mistakes, the situation got out of hand and imports of beef and veal products, with the exception of those covered by the GATT, were banned. The Minister of Agriculture was a party to that decision.
Will the Minister please clarify these points? If the internal prices are above the guide prices, will the basic levy be allowed in steps of 25 per cent., 50 per cent. and 75 per cent., or will the levy be abolished if the internal price is more than 12 per cent. above the guide price? Conversely, if the price falls to 98 per cent. or below, will the levy be increased in stages of 10 per cent., 20 per cent. and 30 per cent.?
The measures proposed in the document will not solve the present crisis in

European beef production. For some time the Conservatives have recognised that the present EEC intervention system has inherent problems in dealing with perishable commodities. Permanent, fiscal intervention is not an effective market guarantee for producers, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said on 30th July 1974. In that speech he outlined our policy proposals to obviate frequent recourse to fiscal intervention. He suggested that a guarantee should include a monetary payments system backed by intervention—in other words, a dual system, trying to get the best out of the system which was operated in Britain before entry to the EEC and the intervention system. However, it would still be necessary with such a system to have the benefit of the measures now proposed.
I want now to advance one or two ideas of my own, though I do not commit my party to them. We must go much further and think in terms of production and marketing authorities for meat and other commodities. At last the National Farmers' Union is thinking on those lines. It is now circularising its branches to ascertain how much support there is for the idea. I urge the Government to think seriously about it. It seems absurd for us to create mountains of different products and then to think of ways of disposing of them.
I do not believe that the problem is as great or as difficult as some people suggest. Strangely enough, we in this country have been eating the same amount of meat for the past 10 years. We eat 3 million tons of meat, year in and year out. It fluctuates by only a very small amount. The same is true in general of the EEC. Surely means can be devised whereby our beef herd or our pig herd does not increase at such a rate that suddenly we are lumbered with a great surplus of meat here or there.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Planning.

Mr. Howell: There is a place for planning, and I think that this is very important in the context of a world food shortage. I do not believe that it is acceptable for millions of tons of grain to be fed to unwanted cattle which are


an embarrassment to all concerned. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will give some thought to this matter with a view to seeing whether a little more logical planning might not help in marrying up the required supply to the demand.
There are one or two questions which I wish to put to the Minister. May I ask him what progress has been made towards a new beef régime—I know that it is under discussion at the moment—and whether the Government have put forward any proposals for discussion with the EEC about the prospects for marketing boards such as I have suggested?
Subject to replies to those questions, the Opposition support these proposals.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: This has been an astonishing day for me. Our main business today, the previous debate and now this one have all produced surprises. It is obvious that someone up there is listening to me. He has taken the physical form of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell)—but none the worse for that.
I wish to differ from the hon. Gentleman in respect of one matter, however. It arose when he said that the Government had learned a lesson in relation to the ending of the guarantee system. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not always at one with his own party, but, with respect, it was not this Government who dispensed with the guarantee system but his own. What the present Government did was to remove the intervention buying, and the hon. Gentleman voiced his objections to that system.

Mr. Ralph Howell: My point was that the present Government removed all support. There would have been intervention support if my party had remained in government. It must be at the door of the present Government that all support was taken from beef producers, and this Government are largely to blame for the troubles we are experiencing at the moment.

Mr. Buchan: It was not so much that the previous administration removed that. It was that they failed to insist, as they did later in October and November, on the restoration of a guarantee structure.

That was the deficiency. I believe that it could have been done at that time. In the same way as we said "No" to price increases and "Yes" to subsidy support to pigs, I believe that at that time, before we embarked on renegotiations, we would have been able to say "This is what we are doing. You have read our manifesto in Brussels, and this is what we intend to do now."
Instead, we entered into discussions and accepted from day to day that which was going on in the Market. Before long it was impossible to do anything else. We should have said "We intend to do this" and I think that we would have got away with it.
I must thank the Minister for his explanation. These are difficult regulations and I cannot pretend to understand them. As always, however, the Explanatory Memorandum is helpful, and before dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North there are one or two aspects of it that I wish to discuss.
Paragraph 3(b) of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
abatement of the levy in times of high Community prices would not be complete until prices rose 12 per cent above the guide price.
That means an additional consumer price equivalent to 6 per cent on the levy over an extended period.
Paragraph 3(c) states:
increases in the levy in times of low Community prices would be an innovation".
I should like an explanation of that because it smacks of the same thing. We should not support beef at the expense of the consumer who is already paying quite enough. There are other ways of supporting the market. At the moment it seems to support itself on a system of levies which does not augur well for the discussions in Brussels.

Mr. Peter Kirk: The hon. Gentleman referred to regulations. I understand that this is a consultative document. There are no regulations involved. We are discussing whether the proposals put forward by the Commission are acceptable to the House or, indeed, to the Community as a whole.

Mr. Buchan: I understand. The Explanatory Memorandum clearly concerns "a proposed Council regulation".


I do not know what the objection is. We are entitled to discuss what is proposed.

Mr. Kirk: This is not a regulation.

Mr. Buchan: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Kirk: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand me. The hon. Gentleman referred to proposed regulations. There are no proposed regulations in this document. This is in fact a Green Paper. It is putting forward certain ideas for possibly dealing with the beef and veal régime, nothing more.

Mr. Buchan: That raises an interesting point. The Minister might like to intervene to explain the matter. The opening three lines of the Explanatory Memorandum state:
Document R/82/75 of 9th January 1975 concerning a proposed Council regulation modifying the system of trade arrangements with third countries in the beef and veal sector.

Mr. Kirk: They are not regulations.

Mr. Buchan: Are we discussing a proposed Council regulation or are we not? It might be useful if the Minister would tell us what we are discussing, because there is clearly some dispute. I shall have to continue. I must take the Government's view on this matter. I am glad that we are getting instructions from the European Assembly, but it does not seem to be the right way to conduct our affairs in this House.

Mr. Kirk: This is not a regulation.

Mr. Buchan: I should prefer the Government to give their views on this matter as they represent us in Brussels. I am not being touchy on this matter.

Mr. Bishop: I intervene to help my hon. Friend. I repeat what I said earlier. We are discussing a document which is before us for discussion. These points are put before us by the EEC as the basis for discussions which will be pursued next week by my right hon. Friend in Brussels. As the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) said, it is a Green Paper at this stage.

Mr. Buchan: The Explanatory Memorandum, signed by the Parliamentary

Secretary, concerns "a proposed Council regulation". I think we are being a bit over-semantic.

Mr. Kirk: Read on.

Mr. Buchan: I have read on. The suggestion is that there is a consultative document before us. I understand that. It is a consultative document which contains certain suggestions. I understand that too. However, the suggestions are concerned with a possible regulation which will be brought forward.

Mr. Kirk: It is a Green Paper.

Mr. Buchan: What are the Opposition Front Bench trying to prove? What kind of nonsense are we getting from Europe? What does it do to a man to make him come in with that kind of nonsense at this time of night?
The next point relates to paragraph 4:
The chief consequences of giving effect to the proposals would be that when market prices were low producers would have greater protection from imports from outside the Community.
Again, the emphasis is on producer support. Are not all these matters directly related to producer support at the expense of the consumer?
An important point was raised by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North. There was no nonsense in his speech, incidentally. He went on to the beef régime and everything else. With respect, I intend to do the same. My question relates to the proposals which are to be discussed this month in Brussels. As I understand it, we shall be striving to achieve, first for Europe and, if that fails, for Britain alone, a guaranteed price deficiency payments system.
I think that our proposals are right, but my anxiety is about the heavy emphasis laid in this consultative document, or Green Paper, on the import levy as a means of producer support. That seems to be a perfectly logical point against the background of what the hon. Member said. I should like to know the present position facing us. Has there been any change in the situation? Will we get this through or not?
The situation was presented to the House as if we had accepted the principle of intervention temporarily merely as a sop to the Community in return for


its enormous concession in ultimately letting us have a deficiency payments structure instead of intervention. But it was presented in Brussels in such a way as to suggest that we had been granted this temporary exception in return for accepting the intervention principle. If the interpretation of Brussels is correct, we may be in trouble. This may be another reason why the Government should have amended their own motion, so as to strengthen their hand. I should like more information about that.
I hope the Government will also make it clear that we reject a system of producer support based upon high end prices, import levies to support those end prices and intervention buying to bite in if the price goes below the fixed price. This House resents and rejects that system and the Minister must carry that message to Brussels. We reject the interpretation that the deficiency payments structure was a temporary exception. The Minister must make it clear that the House was given exactly the reverse interpretation, and this he must adhere to.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North is right. I do not believe that the British people will tolerate for very long, nor will the farmers welcome, a system based on intervention buying. The hon. Member is right to say that the problem of planning ahead for beef is not insuperable, for the simple reason of lack of elasticity in demand. There is considerable elasticity temporarily in relation to price, but generally there is, as with most of our basic foodstuffs, fairly regular consumption of beef. This means that we can plan ahead.
Is that impossible? We do it with potatoes; they are an easy crop to do it with. We can go wrong—perhaps 100,000 tons short or 100,000 tons too much—but we can cope with that. In the first case we can import, although we do not want to do so. In the second case we can buy in at an intervention price. I do not object to that kind of intervention buying in, when it is linked to a system which tries to obviate the necessity for intervention.
That is very different from intervention as a policy which offers high prices for overproduction and then buys in. Rather it is planning for what we think we will need. That is what we shall

produce, and if we go wrong we have to safeguard through intervention buying the producer who has produced in good faith. There are ways in which we have gone wrong in the past, but we have been able to deal with them. Therefore, I welcome the hon. Member's proposals and the fresh thinking from the Opposition benches. I welcome support from wherever it comes.
The hon. Member's idea for producer or marketing authorities and my idea for commodity commissions are not far apart. The difference between us is that the hon. Member puts more stress on the rôle of the producers, whereas I see the situation as one involving the producers, other sections of the trade and the Government in forward planning. I accept the hon. Member's point, but I do not believe that intervention buying for beef has given support where it is needed. We are concentrating our cereal areas on producing cereals for meat production. This cannot be tolerated for very long in the world situation, and it is time we faced up to that.
The way forward is not through grain production for meat but through the development of our grasslands. Dr. Pereira was right in saying that the grasslands could be improved in two ways. We could have still more intelligent grassland farming, first by investing more money in it and secondly by turning more of our marginal land into good grassland. Both are costly and neither will be done as long as we have an end-price policy for beef and other commodities.
An end-price policy is the enemy of good husbandry. It is a policy which advises the farmer not to produce what the ground can produce, to farm not for need but for the cash return. This distorts good farming and husbandry. This is a question not of making a fast buck on the Stock Exchange but of farming soil which will be used in 10, 20 or 30 years' time. That is why I welcome the points put forward by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North.
I hope that the Minister will comment on the points raised tonight which cover a wider range of our farming needs. It is not possible to implement any of these points within the present straitjacket of the common agricultural policy because, quite apart from the


specific things we are renegotiating, the structure itself is based upon principles such as a high-end price, intervention buying and import levies. That will prevent us, no matter what advanced thinking we may employ, from implementing these fresh ideas.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Surely we have had an example this evening in the previous debate of how we have been able to alter the CAP to our way of thinking on the question of aid for hill farmers. Having done that, perhaps we can do the same with the matters we have been discussing in this debate.

Mr. Buchan: I am not sure that the hon. Member's example proves his case. The Government have had to change a motion to secure the support of the House in trying to achieve a change in Brussels. That is what the exercise was all about. The basic regulations had nothing to do with the precise and detailed examination of British hill farming. It was a question of linking the improvement of British hill farming with Community policies.
Without a basic change in the philosophy and structure of the common agricultural policy, the far-sighted ideas of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North cannot be put into practice. That is the message of tonight's debate.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I entered the Chamber as an interested listener, but because of certain things that have been said and others that have not been said I should like to make a brief contribution to the debate.
I was much impressed by the refreshing approach of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell). There was a great deal in what he said. It was a Government of his party who set up the Milk Marketing Board, an example of the sort of agency that I think he had in mind. When we were negotiating our entry into the Common Market we had to go very carefully to see whether the board could remain in its present form. I believe that there are still some doubts about gradings and sales of milk, and such matters may yet be difficult. We must bear in mind that that agency was in some difficulty and subject to question when we consider extending the example to beef, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
My hon. Friend the Minister did not say whether he wholeheartedly agreed with the document or whether he had any reservations. I gather from something of a non-speech that he went along with the proposals in the so-called Green Paper. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that, and that if he has no reservations on the matter he will say so.
I had hoped that all I need to do was to make my brief intervention at the end of my hon. Friend's speech, but that is not so because he did not confirm that the proposal is another device to keep up the internal price of beef. Our import possibilities are cut by a regulation which says that there shall be no imports. We are now changing that scheme for a variable height of tariff or levy fence. As the internal price of beef goes down, so the levy goes up, and as the internal price of beef goes up so the levy comes down pro rata, so that the tariff fence is kept up almost as high as it would be, and the cost can only be to the producer.
Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to deny that the purpose of the Green Paper is to maintain the price of beef and veal higher than it would otherwise be if there were free access of supplies of beef and veal from outside the EEC. I am sorry that when I intervened my hon. Friend did not admit that straight away. It is clear that that is the whole purpose of the scheme. Maybe it is a better scheme than suddenly shutting it off by a regulation presented overnight at the Council of Ministers.
The policy implication paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum summarises the nature of the document inadequately. The document—mysteriously numbered R/82/75, the same sort of nomenclature as if it were a regulation—gives the actual figures in a couple of succinct paragraphs. It illustrates my point that as the internal price goes down so the levy goes up, and vice versa. The last lines of Article 12 read:
the basic levy shall apply as fixed by the Commision in accordance with Articles 10 and 11.
It is an annex to the so-called Green Paper, but it is fairly clear that this last and not very well-headed sheet is the draft regulation. If it is not, there would not be the heading "Article 12" and the language would not be the same. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for


Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is correct. Although it may be presented as a Green Paper, it is clearly in the form of a draft regulation.
In submitting the Explanatory Memorandum, the Minister was rather less than frank with the House. He did not go into the figures or the implications which are clearly set out in the document. While this may be an improvement on the sort of open-shut method which we have at the moment for administrative convenience, it is maintaining the levy system which keeps out meat from other parts of the world which may be available at certain times to those inside the EEC.
By virtue of what my hon. Friend did not say in his opening speech and by virtue of the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum is coy on the matter of figures which are clearly set out in the draft regulations, it seems that the Government have been less than frank with the House in the way they have presented this matter to us. There is a regulation which stops entry and this is a modification of it. It is not something to which we can necessarily object. As I see it, it is a change of method. It is a change of method which some of us do not like. We have said so on many occasions.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. Bishop: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Newham. South (Mr. Spearing) was in the House when I introduced the document that is now before us on which he suggests that I was rather less than frank. Having suggested to the House that there were hidden figures which were being kept secret, he suddenly fell upon Article 12, to which I have earlier made reference, and said that all the secrets were revealed. I referred to Article 12 and said that I did not intend to go through it in detail. I presumed that hon. Members had already done so.

Mr. Spearing: I think that my hon. Friend has mistaken the tenor of my remarks. I was referring not to his speech but to the content of the document—namely, the Explanatory Memorandum prepared by his right hon. Friend. It would have been easy to put the figures in the memorandum but the Government chose not to do so.

Mr. Bishop: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is still my hon. Friend and that his allegation of lack of frankness does not refer to me. This is a draft regulation. At the very beginning it states:
It seems necessary to set out new guidelines in addition to the proposals made in January 1974, taking into account (i) the views of the Council when it examined the proposals in question and (ii) the events experienced during the last few months.
I said in my concluding remarks—I mention the matter because my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South has asked for my views on the document—that seen against the background to which I had made reference the Commission's proposals are constructive and merit closer examination and that we need to examine them in detail to determine how they compare with the present system. I said that we would aim to temper the more restrictive aspects of the proposals and ensure that the increase in levies in times of low market prices was not as high as to be prohibitive. Those were a few of the comments which I made about the document.

Mr. Spearing: I think that I have to protect myself on this occasion. My hon. Friend has just said that the proposals merit closer examination. Surely the House is entitled to know the conclusions of such examination at this stage. It was that sort of remark which I thought was less than my hon. Friend's best.

Mr. Bishop: I do not think that I should requote my speeches at this time of day. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he reads my speech in Hansard. He will then see a better assessment of my views.
My hon. Friend was, I think, the first to intervene on levies. The levies have a higher incidence than under the old régime, but we do not believe that they will prevent imports. To do that would require the ban which is at present in force. The effect will need some assessment in the forthcoming Council discussions.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When the Minister said in reply to his hon. Friend that the Government would have to consider a number of aspects of the proposal and, naturally, could not at this stage give the outcome of the consideration, did he mean that when this


proposal, however modified, was eventually embodied in the real regulation, the regulation would come before the House in due course so that the House could see the conclusion before it was finally agreed?

Mr. Bishop: I do not know whether I can give the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman seeks, but we are fortunate to have an hour and a half to discuss the proposal and the views which have been expressed will be taken into account.
As the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) said, we can help to influence the future drafting of this document. We have had some time in which to comment on it. The levy scheme will protect producers at home, and that is right because our home market is of great importance. I recognise the problems that face the home producer, especially after the events of the past year.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the level of imports must be linked to our own market situation. We have not dispensed with the guarantee system. When allegations are made by the Opposition that we have taken away the guarantees, it is timely to point out that it was the Opposition when in power who took away the fatstock guarantee scheme which gave a floor to the market. It has taken months of negotiations by my right hon. Friend in Brussels to bring about the situation which the Opposition dispensed with.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Did not the Minister fail to operate intervention, which was the policy of the Conservative Government—a policy which we fully intended to implement when the time came?

Mr. Bishop: I shall deal with intervention in a moment when I conclude my remarks.
As the hon. Gentleman said, if the Community price were above the guide price the levy would be reduced. Similarly, the hon. Gentleman was correct in his analysis of the way in which the levy would increase as the price dropped below the guide price. The hon. Gentleman's ideas on support systems were interesting but, I think, out of order in this debate. However, his idea of combining the best of the EEC and the

old United Kingdom schemes is close to the ideas which we have put forward in Brussels.
We are awaiting the farmers' views on the marketing board. The hon. Gentleman has seen my right hon. Friend and me in a private interview at the Ministry and has expressed his keenness on marketing boards. I repeat the point that it is for the industry to come forward with proposals, which will be considered by the Ministry. We have not proposed marketing boards to the EEC. We are awaiting the producers' reactions to the NFU questionnaire. Marketing boards cannot operate without producer support.
The hon. Gentleman asked about progress towards a new beef régime. The matter is currently under discussion in Brussels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was concerned about the level of the levy and the impact on the consumer. These proposals are unlikely to have any consumer impact. The Community is almost 100 per cent. self-sufficient in beef and the United Kingdom is 91 per cent. self-sufficient. The home supplies will set the tone of prices in 1975. My hon. Friend knows that we have rejected permanent intervention as the main method of support. I remind him that in our manifesto, which he is fond of quoting, we said that the intervention system of the common agricultural policy had not worked. That is still our view, and we are therefore negotiating for more flexibility in the beef régime. My right hon. Friend has secured notable successes in the past year with regard to the introduction of the beef premium, the variable premium and so on.

Mr. Buchan: It might be useful to draw attention to the fact that there were two manifestos last year. The October manifesto refers back approvingly to the February manifesto, and the February manifesto refers to the party policy document as being the objective to be negotiated. Therefore the substantive document, not a Green Paper, is the policy document. It is a question of looking not only at the hip-pocket manifesto but at the wallet-size one too.

Mr. Bishop: I do not intend to go into the differences in the two manifestos.


All I know is that I have my pocket-size manifesto here, and I hope that my hon. Friend will read his copy of it, together with his Bible, before he goes to bed.
My hon. Friend referred to producer support and spoke about import levies. The traditional and main means of producer support in the EEC is intervention. We are aiming to modify this fundamentally by persuading the Community to provide producer support through a variable premium, underpinned by a measure of support buying. The present régime ought to be far more flexible than it is, and the objective of my right hon. Friend will be to bring about the necessary changes in that respect.
In view of these remarks, I feel that the House would be well advised to take note of the document to which I referred earlier.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/82/75.

RACE RELATIONS AND IMMIGRATION

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 14th January relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration Mrs Lynda Chalker be discharged from the Committee and Mr Alfred Hall-Davis be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

HOUSING (THERMAL INSULATION)

12.27 a.m.

Mr. James Tinn: I am grateful for the opportunity to direct the attention of the House and of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to what is certainly a serious problem and a national one. When we are not thinking about inflation, probably the next most serious thing on our minds these days is energy saving. We know from various actions and pronouncements that the Government are in earnest about this, and that makes the matter which I am raising tonight all the more extraordinary.
From all that we have heard we cannot fail to be aware that the Government are examining all reasonable ways of avoiding wasteful use of energy. These include cutting down on domestic fuel consumption. In a debate on 19th November on housing insulation the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) pointed out that nearly half of our entire energy consumption was used in heating houses and other buildings.
In replying to that debate on behalf of the Government my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), who is to reply to the debate tonight, made particular mention of improvements in the Building Regulations with regard to thermal insulation. However, it now appears that something in the Building Regulations themselves hits against the very case that the Government have been arguing. Regulation C9(2) of the Building Regulations 1972, as amended, has cast doubt on one of the principal methods of thermal insulation—cavity wall filling. Local authorities have been put in a position of uncertainty, and at the very least it now looks as though insulation schemes will be held up—indeed, in my constituency they are being held up—and this at a time when energy saving is an urgent concern.
Regulation C9(2) covers the prevention of damp in certain cavity walls and states, among other things that
in any such wall, wherever a cavity is bridged otherwise than by—

(a) a wall tie; or
(b) a bridging which occurs at the top of a wall in such a position that it is protected


by a roof, a damp-proof course or flashing shall be inserted in such a manner as will prevent the passage of moisture from the outer leaf to the inner leaf of the wall."

The filling of cavity walls to achieve thermal insulation has been accepted practice for several years. There are various materials available for cavity filling, and for the purpose of my argument there is no real difference between them. The cavity wall system of construction has in post-war years been the predominant method employed for dwellings of up to four storeys. Thus it has an important role to play in the energy-saving programme.
What has now come into question is whether the filling of the cavity in the various ways which have been in common use constitutes the bridging to which the regulations refer. If a bridging is so created, the fear would be that moisture might be transmitted from the outer to the inner wall, causing dampness. I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that we should take risks over dampness. However, we must judge this according to the evidence and in proportion to the benefits to be realised from better insulation.
The filling of cavity walls has been going on for some time, and not only in this country. It has been accepted by local authorities and by the Department of the Environment. It eliminates condensation in homes. This brings peace of mind to the occupants and a reduction in maintenance costs to local authorities in the case of local authority housing. It can also produce dramatic savings in home heating costs.
It has been shown that, on the basis of insulation with urea formaldehyde foam, savings of 20 to 30 per cent. on average in fuel costs can be achieved in a centrally-heated home. A particular advantage of this material—the principal filling material—is the low energy cost in production and installation.
The energy used is the oil equivalent of 114 kg, while the average saving in a year, I understand, is 180 kg. The net saving of 66 kg in the first year would rise to 180 kg per year for the rest of the life of the building. There are still some 10 million homes which

have not been insulated, quite apart from the work to be done on new homes as they are built and for which the system is suitable.
Cavity wall filling is not something which can be carried out in every house, because each site has to be examined by technicians for suitability, and reputable companies do this. Even so, this system obviously has very considerable potential.
The apple cart has been upset, however, by a determination under head (b) of Section 67 of the Public Health Act 1936 issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment early in 1974. He was asked to rule on a case involving the application of the regulation to the filling of an external cavity wall with foamed urea formaldehyde. His ruling was that the proposed filling of the cavity wall would constitute a bridging of the cavity and that, as it did not include the insertion of a damp-proof course or flashing, the proposed work could not be regarded as satisfying the requirements of Regulation C9(2).
The Building Regulations are for the guidance of local authorities, and they can in certain circumstances waive them. The validity of cavity wall filling has hitherto been widely accepted. Now, however, local authorities are beginning to pick up the Secretary of State's determination and are stepping in to refuse cavity wall filling operations. It is, of course, open to the householder to appeal for a waiver of the regulation by the local authority, but this makes for delays, especially where the authority insists on dealing with every case singly.
It is at this point that the matter starts to become extraordinary. My right hon. Friend placed before Parliament new Building Regulations which came into effect on 31st January. In Part F dealing with thermal insulation, urea formaldehyde foam is quoted in a schedule as a material and system which is deemed to satisfy the regulations. Moreover, in the debate on 19th November to which I have already referred my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in talking of home insulation, said:
In appropriate situations, cavity-filling foam or fibre insulation material can be used".—[Official Report, 19th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1281.]
It would seem, therefore, that the Department does not after all disapprove


of these methods of cavity wall filling. Yet we have also on the record the Secretary of State's determination which seems to say the opposite.
I believe that my hon. Friend was quite right in what he said on 19th November. In practice there has been little to suggest that the risk of dampness has been heightened by the use of cavity fillings. Manufacturers of urea formaldehyde foam insist that their product provides a resistance to the passage of water between the outer and inner walls and, therefore, is not a bridging in the meaning of the regulation. The experience of several years during which countless homes have been so insulated suggests that they are right, because the instances of any kind of failure are few and far between. What is, of course, important is that each site is checked for suitability before the operation is carried out.
The main point is that this is a situation which has got to be sorted out, and sorted out quickly before there is a serious slowing-down in home insulation. I cannot believe that there are not a number of possibilities open to the Department and I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to this debate he will be able to give some indication as to which he will adopt.
The first point to consider is my right hon. Friend's determination. Did he intend it to be as sweeping as it appears? The case in question involved one building in the west of Cumbria in an area stated to be severely exposed and subject to high winds and driving rain. Perhaps my right hon. Friend had in mind these circumstances when making his determination, because otherwise he appears to have gone against the practice of his own Department, the statements of his own colleagues and the apparent firm policy of the Government. I wonder whether he might not issue a sort of supplementary determination limiting the scope of his main determination to the circumstances of that particular case.
The second point is whether it really can be right to consider the types of cavity wall fillings we have been discussing as bridgings within the meaning of the regulation. I do not think that those who drew up the regulation in the first

place had in mind to shut out the beneficial use of these materials. I understand that a submission has been made to the Department arguing that these cavity fillings ought not to be regarded as bridgings. Can the Minister say whether he accepts this point and whether he will make an official pronouncement accordingly? Alternatively, if these cavity fillings cannot be regarded as anything other than bridgings in a physical sense, even though they do not have the effect of transmitting moisture—which is what the regulation is really all about—will my hon. Friend seek to amend the regulation specifically to permit such fillings? I appreciate that it is important not to introduce dangerous loopholes into the regulations, but I cannot believe that there is not some way in which the desired result cannot be brought about.
Would another possibility be for my right hon. Friend to issue guidance to local authorities to help them in their interpretation of the Building Regulations affecting thermal insulation so that they may not find themselves in conflict with the expressed wish of the Government in conserving energy? The guidance might cover such matters as standards, types of buildings, exposure and the use of reputable contractors.
Fourthly, I would like to ask my hon. Friend whether he or his right hon. Friend has been in touch with the Department of Energy about this matter. Bearing in mind the steps being taken by that Department to guard the use of fuel, I should think it would be horrified if the consequence of my right hon. Friend's determination was to lead to a slowing down of the home insulation programme. Yet there is evidence—I have it on my doorstep—that this is happening. I have indications from other hon. Members that it is happening in their constituencies too, including the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) and Goole (Dr. Marshall), who, I hope, will have a few words to say presently.
Not only is this flying in the face of what ordinary sense dictates but it contradicts the plain intention of Government policy, which is to facilitate the thermal insulation of buildings even to the extent of broadening the present grant arrangements.
So there we have it. A strange situation has developed. I realise that considerable technicalities are involved, but I do not think that that removes the need for a commonsense solution. We have an energy crisis to contend with and we cannot afford to delay conservation measures when the evidence is as obvious as it is in this instance. Nor can we perpetuate a situation in which it could be said that the Government were sabotaging their own wise policy and, as I have explained, their own practice. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to put my mind to rest and, what is more important, eliminate the uncertainty now threatening to envelop the insulation industry, local authorities and, not least, the economy-minded citizen.

12.43 p.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) has done the House a service in raising this important subject so soon after the coming into operation of the amendments to the Building Regulations of 1974. I wish to express the concern felt by the aggregate block manufacturers in my constituency about the practical implementation of those regulations and in particular the provisions of paragraph F(3) of Schedule 1 to the regulations, dealing with the new thermal insulation standards.
There are two such firms in my constituency, namely Plasmor Ltd. of Knottingley, which has about 120 employees, and a much smaller firm, Clinker Block Co. Ltd., of Heck, near Goole, which has a staff of 20, nearly all of whom are engaged in producing the kind of aggregate blocks affected by this regulation.
Those firms realise that considerable changes will be needed in their processes to comply with the new regulations. They are concerned that there should be sufficient time for them and for the whole building industry to adapt to the new blocks that will need to be designed. In particular I wish to follow my hon. Friend by saying that in any redesign of aggregate blocks consideration will have to be given to new cavity spaces inside the blocks. I am told that in Yorkshire in particular there is extreme reluctance on the part of builders to purchase blocks with holes in them. There is no doubt

that the traditions of the building industry will have to change as a result of these regulations. On behalf of my constituents, I express the hope that adequate time will be allowed.

12.45 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) on raising a matter of wide concern which the House was frustrated from debating a few nights ago. I should also like to welcome the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) to the Opposition Front Bench in the continuing quiet revolution which is taking place on the other side of the House.
I am encouraged by the interest that hon. Members are taking in the thermal insulation of housing. We had an Adjournment debate on this same issue as recently as last November and I know from the weight of recent correspondence how widespread and keen is the concern. The recent dramatic increase in fuel prices makes it important for discussion of the subject to be as informed and as wide-ranging as possible. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for having given notice of the points they wished to raise, but before I deal with them I should like to make one or two general points.
The question of cavity filling, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, has recently attracted much publicity, not all of it good. First, however, I should like to make it clear and confirm what I said on a previous occasion that we consider a cavity filling to be a perfectly safe method of providing thermal insulation as long as it is done in the right way to the right house. We have, in fact, specified it as one of the ways in which our new thermal insulation standards can be met.
However, if cavity filling is not done properly, or it is done to the wrong house, trouble follows. It needs to be done by an expert, and not all the practitioners in this growth area of the building industry are experts. Not all houses are built so that the cavity between the inner and outer leaf of the walls can be safely filled. Moreover, in exceptionally exposed areas even a suitable cavity properly filled can give trouble from damp penetration unless the outer leaf of the


wall is properly weatherproofed. The consequences of a badly done job can be unpleasant and even dangerous.
I now come to the specific points that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar made. First, he asked about the determination we gave in a previous case. A determination is like a judgment of the courts in that it relates to a particular case but may be quoted as a precedent, and, like a court judgment, it is based on both the facts of the case and the meaning of the words used in the regulations. The decision in the West Cumbria determination to which my hon. Friend referred was based not on the weather in that area—the fact that the weather in Workington is wet—but on the actual wording of Regulation C9. I must add that we are now considering another application for determination involving the regulation. In the West Cumbria case neither party disputed that the Building Regulations applied to the work. They differed over whether the regulations were complied with. In the present case we are asked whether the Building Regulations apply. In coming to a decision we shall again have to take into account the precise wording of the regulations concerned.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asked whether these fillings are to be regarded as bridgings. I am advised that this is so, and this was the basis of our decision in the West Cumbria case. We appreciate, however, that Regulation C9 dates from before the days of insulation by filling the cavity between the inner and outer leaf. We shall be keeping the position under review to see whether there is any possibility of revising Regulation C9 to take account of this practice in a way that will provide adequate safeguards against damp or unsafe buildings.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend raised the question of guidance to local authorities. Only the local authority can decide how the Building Regulations apply to work in its area, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot tell local authorities what they should do. We do, however, give guidance from time to time and we shall consider whether we need to do so on this matter.
My hon. Friend's last point concerns co-operation with the Department of Energy. We recognise the need for co-

ordination between Departments on the important issue of energy conservation, and we naturally work in close co-operation with the Department of Energy. But the application of the Building Regulations in a particular case is a matter for the local authority or, in certain circumstances, my Department.
Finally, I understand that the Langbaurgh Council, in my hon. Friend's constituency, usually takes three weeks to process an application, except when neighbours of terrace or semi-detached houses are given 21 days to comment. I do not think that this can be considered unreasonable delay.
I should like to take advantage of the wide terms in which my hon. Friend has framed his case to say something about our increased requirements on thermal insulation of dwellings. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to put on record certain matters about which we believe that it is important for people to know. Our proposals have been generally welcomed, but I think there is concern on one broad issue and on one specific provision.
The broad issue is whether, in the context of the growing need to conserve fuel, our proposals go far enough. Part of the answer to this criticism lies in the statutory powers under which they were made.
Under the Public Health Acts we can make regulations solely in the interests of public health and safety, and it is under these powers that our revision has been made. Our object was to reduce condensation in dwellings, several years of study having shown that thermal insulation can play a significant part in doing this. Moreover, unlike the other factors involved, such as heating and ventilation levels, thermal insulation can be fairly easily controlled by Building Regulations.
Nevertheless, the new regulations will make a significant contribution to fuel economy. We are, roughly speaking, doubling the amount of insulation required. To take a fairly simple example, the amount of insulating quilt to be inserted in a roof will have to be increased from 25 to 50 mm. We are satisfied that these new standards can be achieved with no significant increase in the capital cost of new housing and without shortages of insulating or structural materials.
We are by no means convinced, however, that this would be the case if we were to lay down an even higher standard at the present time. Apart from the obvious undesirability of adding further to the cost of new housing, we are uncertain whether the necessary skills and techniques required to achieve a higher standard are yet sufficiently developed. This applies not only to the manufacture of materials but to the skills and techniques employed on the building site itself.
We also need to consider very carefully the possible side effects of going to standards of which there has not hitherto been any widespread experience in this country. We are, for example, examining the problem of interstitial condensation which I understand to be the undesirable development of condensation within the structure of highly insulated walls.
The House will be aware that under the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act, which became law in July last year, we have express power to make Building Regulations in the interests of conserving fuel. As I have told the House on another occasion, we have in hand an urgent study, which we hope to complete in the next few weeks, of possibilities for fuel conservation in buildings of all kinds. The object is to identify the types of building, the technical means most likely to produce savings and the feasibility of achieving them. This involves taking into account the likely pattern of national energy supply over a considerable period, since buildings tend to last a long time. It also means considering action for both the short term and the long term. I stress that the possibilities include not only thermal insulation in its various forms but other possibilities which might lead to equal or greater savings.
I cannot yet forecast the extent to which housing will be identified as requiring priority over other building types or whether further increases in thermal insulation standards are likely to give greater immediate benefit than improvements in, say, the control of ventilation or heating systems. The House will, I hope, understand that I do not think it wil be right for us to make new regulations until we have assimilated the results of this work.
There is one other point I should like to make before leaving this general issue of the right level of insulation at the present time. Because the regulations are mandatory, we must be sure that their requirements can be met and that the benefits they bring will be worth while. But the standards they set are minimum standards. There is nothing to stop anyone building to a higher standard. I know that legal "floors" tend to turn into "ceilings", and I am very much aware of the need for us to set the right standards, but if we turn out to be wrong and it proves to be both practicable and worthwhile for people to build to a higher standard there is nothing in our regulations preventing them from doing so.
The provision of our regulations which has caused concern is the requirement that the thermal transfer coefficient, or U-value, of the external walls of a dwelling should be 1·0. A Committee representing manufacturers of lightweight aggregate concrete blocks and the Brick Development Association have complained to us and to many hon. Members that this new standard will put them at a grave disadvantage compared with the makers of aerated concrete blocks who are a relatively small sector of the construction materials industry. The two firms mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) are both Members of the committee, and I have in the past written to other hon. Members about the problems of Plasmor Limited.
I do not have time to deal with these arguments in detail, although I hope to do so in correspondence with hon. Members who have written to me. However, I should like to put on record our view that, while we do not doubt that the committee's members will face difficulties—some will find them harder than others—we do not believe that there will be the catastrophe that the committee expects. It is possible for block makers to adapt their products without undue cost and in good time. Many have already done so and it would be possible to find alternative uses for their products in other parts of the structure.
I should say in passing that there appears to be a widespread belief that from 31st January, the date when the new order took effect, all new housing has to


be built to the new standards. This is not so. The end of last month was the deadline after which all plans for new housing submitted for approval would have to comply with the new standard.
Since in the public sector at least it takes from one to two years to move from the submission of plans to the start of work above foundations, the demand for materials for houses built to the old standard will not suddenly stop. In the private sector the time lag is not so great but it exists.
I should, however, make clear that it has become apparent from surveys we have made that a large proportion of houses in the public sector are already built with external walls at about the new standards. Most of these walls have the usual one leaf of brick and one of block. Nevertheless, it would certainly not be in the interest of block makers to delay adapting their products. I have

with me an example of how it can be done which I can show to my hon. Friend.
I have no reason to believe that the two firms in my hon. Friend's constituency which produce blocks made of both dense and lightweight aggregates should find it impossible to reduce the density of their products to meet the new requirements, either by adapting their moulds to permit the introduction of cavities into the blocks or by using some of the new aggregates now coming on to the market.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes to One o'clock.